Debate on Annual Budget Statement

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [16 February 2021] [2nd Allotted Day],

"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022." – [Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance].

Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

12.29 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, every Budget Statement attracts suggestions on how the money may be spent differently, depending on the causes one is championing.

This year, I received feedback from some Singaporeans about measures to restore our national reserves. Instead of the usual range of suggestions on spending, they are thinking of ways to add to our coffers. I find it most encouraging and comforting that despite the hardships, people are aware of how our predecessors’ savings have helped our generation through this crisis and want to do the same for future generations.

On the other hand, there are some who suggest that we reduce expenditure in areas such as education, public amenities and even defence, so that more money can be given out as cash assistance. I understand and empathise with the predicament of residents who are cash-strapped but I am afraid I cannot support this kind of suggestion.

Education and healthcare, especially for our children, are too important to our future to be compromised. The defence of our little island is too critical for us to cut corners. The world does not become a safer place during a global crisis. We just have to work harder and smarter to earn the funds we need.

Thus, it is important that we continue to attract quality investments and see to the realisation of such investments to create quality jobs for Singaporeans. With a vibrant economy and job market, we will be able to rebuild our national savings slowly but surely. We must continue to upgrade ourselves to stay competitive and future-ready for many more years to come, as more jobs are at risk in the face of disruptive technology and the advancement of AI and big data.

There are also potential new sources of tax revenues in the new economy. Just a few hours ago this morning, Australia's government had reached agreement with media tech companies to collect tax on news while European countries have imposed tax on goods sold online. We can work with tech companies to look at possible sources of tax revenue, such as advertising revenue, whilst we continue to welcome and incentivise their investment here.

At the same time, we need to relook at our economic model. New technological developments are benefiting owners of capital and enterprises. We need a harder push towards a more innovation-driven economy so that more Singaporeans are on the side of capital. This may be the only way to reap the benefits of technology developments and scale up to reach markets beyond our shores.

It is also timely to explore new economic sectors. The agri-food cluster is a good initiative to boost a new industry – one which we were not developing as much in the past due to concerns over land constraints. Today, new tech enables vertical farming and new ways of fish farming. I am excited by these prospects.

We are very much a people focused on property gains. Many Singaporeans dream of being a landlord with at least two properties – one to live in and one to rent out – or making capital gains from selling properties. There is nothing wrong with this dream. But I hope more Singaporeans will consider the other pathways to wealth creation – to create a new product or service, or a new type of business. Some have already started on this journey and hence, more needs to be done to engage and help small enterprises and the self-employed, so that they can grow into bigger entities or continue their trades into their senior years.

At the same time, we have to ensure Singaporean’s love of properties will not drive up property prices beyond the reach of the majority of Singaporeans. Let us remember that residences are primarily meant to be lived in as homes.

On the other hand, we have to be mindful not to be trapped by our properties, or some would say, be a property-slave, which is another way of describing an asset-rich, cash-poor property owner. Some are in genuine difficulties due to sudden job losses or illnesses. They are willing to consider right-sizing their homes but need time for the sale of their properties to go through. But there are others who request government assistance though there are alternatives available to assist them, such as right sizing, renting out rooms and signing on Lease Buyback Scheme which do not even require them to move out of their homes.

Government resources are finite, and financial support and assistance must be targeted at low-income groups who do not have the option of monetising assets. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] No matter how difficult our economic situation is, I hope that the Government will continue to support our elderly and senior workers through financial, healthcare and workplace support measures. For this most needy group, I hope that in addition to the Government, our entire society will continue to give them more care and love, and donate money or commit time to help them.

(In English): This Budget is commendable for the continuous support for the vulnerable groups through financial reliefs and various rebates and vouchers. Notwithstanding, there is room for improvement. More proactive measures to address the hardship cases of the unemployed would have been helpful. I understand from some residents they were unable to receive their financial assistance as quickly as they would like.

For example, I heard that a number of participants under the training programmes did not receive their monthly allowance on a timely basis. Some of them had to wait for more than three months. During this period, every delay would have caused financial strain to the participants. Government agencies must put in place measures to ensure that all these schemes to ease hardship be swiftly and effectively administered.

I welcome the extension of job growth incentives to support the employment of Singaporeans, especially the seniors and people with disabilities. I appeal for further extension of job credits and wage supplements, which have been well received by Singaporeans, to support senior workers and low-income workers. We must continue to help middle-aged and senior workers who had lost their jobs to reskill and move on to new careers.

The SGUnited Jobs and Skills Centre should continue to reach out to new graduates in the next three years, so that they, too, will have certainty in the post-COVID-19 world.

I would suggest the Government also look into incentivising companies with support to upskill their workers regularly, yearly, such as setting aside a minimum number of days of paid leave for the workers to upskill.

To resume our economic activities, we need to get our people vaccinated quickly so that we can work with other countries to keep our air hub open to encourage business travellers and tourists to visit Singapore, with all public and safe health measures in place. We need to ensure Changi Airport continues to remain the leading transport hub internationally.

COVID-19 has accelerated industry and market transformation. It has brought forth many changes, enabled by digitisation and high speed networks. Examples include online food delivery and online conferences.

I support GST on purchases made online to level the playing field. On the other hand, we need to help local enterprises to export and do online sale to overseas markets.

The supporting measures for electric vehicles are timely. My concern is that it will be difficult to get more charging stations set up in existing carparks, including HDB carparks, private condos and office buildings. Many building owners are not keen to install them as the investment cost versus the demand for EV cars are still not well-matched. Incentivising the continued investment to improve the technology are as important as incentivising car buyers to switch to EVs.

Last but not least, in view of the pandemic, I appeal for extension of childcare support leave for working parents who do not have family support to look after their children. For example, if a young child falls sick, he is given at least five days' medical leave by the doctor due to COVID-19 conditions. At least one parent has to take leave to look after the child. If the same child falls sick again, the other parent will have to take leave. Working parents with young children struggle to manage the demands of bringing up a kid with employment demands.

With that, I would like to conclude with my support for the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

12.40 pm

Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, "the times, they are-a-changing", as the old Bob Dylan song goes. The COVID-19 pandemic has thrown longer term trends into sharp relief, increasing inequality between industries and workers, with some industries basking in the sun even if sunset falls on other industries; some slowly, some more quickly. For example, fossil fuel-related industries will feel the long-term pressures from global decarbonisation, especially with the new US administration reinserting the world's largest economy back into the Paris Climate Change Agreement.

In my speech, Sir, I shall speak about the changes going on in the world with industry transformation – a theme I have talked about in recent speeches in this House – and what are the strategies we should adopt to help our workers, firms and fiscal institutions adapt to these changes and use them to our advantage as a country.

Let me begin by bringing out several devices. This is my first Blackberry phone, which I obtained in the early 2000s and this is my second Blackberry. I loved these old devices. It took me a very long time to switch to a different device because I was comfortable with them, because they worked fine, because it meant I did not have to learn how to use a new device. It was far more attractive to stay in the comfort zone. I only switched when things reached a point where I was concerned about being able to continue using the devices I had grown so attached to.

I use this example because it tells us a lot about our relationship with technology, but also the economy. So it is with many of us. When things are going well, we like to stay in the comfort zone. Even when you can see change on the horizon, even when you know you cannot go on in the same way forever, you say, "Well, why change today? Why not tomorrow?"

But how do we nudge people out of the comfort zone to embrace change and face the future, even when things are, for now, going reasonably well? This is a policy challenge. It is also a national challenge for all stakeholders.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) Future of Jobs Report 2020 noted that accountants, auditors, bank tellers and HR specialists were at the highest risk of redundancy. Many workers in delivery industries and doing driving work will see their jobs displaced by drones and autonomous vehicles. However, for all these jobs, things are all right now.

To take another example – discouraged workers are workers who have given up looking for work because they feel their job search would not yield results, perhaps because of a lack of employable skills or confidence. Discouraged workers made up 0.7% of the resident labour force in 2020, surpassing the previous high of 0.6% in the 2009 GFC recession; 0.7% is not yet a tsunami by any means but it is a sobering bellwether.

Sir, how do we prepare for the storms of change to come, amidst the pockets of sunshine? Let me address this by making some suggestions for how our policies can be enhanced to make our companies, our workers and our fiscal institutions more future-ready.

I will start with companies and as I do so, I declare my interest as the CEO of an international research consultancy.

A look around the world shows that many companies and industry sectors, ironically, did well out of COVID-19 and grew financially as well as in terms of market position. Industries like FMCG, online retail, ICT and biomedical, on the whole, did fairly well. However, has corporate Singapore, on the whole, fared as well?

In 2020, when the Straits Times Index was severely weakened due to COVID-19, the US NASDAQ went up 42% and the wider S&P 500 was up 15% at the end of 2020. In fact, during this COVID-19 period, the Straits Times Index (STI) under-performed the broader MSCI Asia-Pacific Index, setting aside US markets. As my Parliamentary colleague Mr Louis Chua mentioned yesterday, return on equity for the Singapore market, ex-financials, has also seen a steady decline, falling to a 20-year low of 5.9% in 2019, before COVID-19. In the fourth quarter of 2019, 35% of firms listed in Singapore were already loss making, the highest level since the 2008/2009 global financial crisis.

Many, not all, but many of our larger firms are facing headwinds due to being in traditional sectors or not yet being able to innovate their way out. Even a number of homegrown companies have decided to go public on foreign exchanges rather than Singapore.

This calls in question why there are so few examples of local firms drawing on entrepreneurial talent rooted in Singapore, who have succeeded in becoming globally competitive? Is the environment conducive to start up and scale up? Or is the talent and motivation not forthcoming?

In past speeches, I have talked about the role of education in fostering an entrepreneurial mindset. Today, I would like to focus on the environment to start up and scale up.

It is an important national imperative to cultivate the core of locally based firms that have the DNA to be globally competitive to balance our dependence on MNCs, who may be fickle and buffeted by the winds of global economics and domestic politics in their home countries. Have years of schemes, like the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) in the past, as well as host of other SME development schemes brought us closer to this goal? I would argue that we need regular published audits for our SME schemes to establish what causal effect such schemes have had on the long-term growth and competitiveness trajectory of local firms who use them. Only then would we understand the return on investment from such schemes and only then would we be able to design better schemes.

For example, what is the evidence that the PIC scheme substantially catalysed productivity growth and innovation among the SMEs who were beneficiaries of the scheme? A KPMG report from 2015 stated and I quote, "while take-up rates have gone up, the scheme's impact on productivity has been muted".

To take another example, despite concerted policy efforts to digitise, more than 60% of employees and managers in Singapore firms in a 2019 survey said that they were unimpressed or undecided about Government policies in preparation for the impact of Artificial Intelligence on jobs.

Major investments in schemes intended to generate economic outcomes – or in fact any outcomes – should be accompanied with regular measures of success. Not just numbers of companies helped, but how did the schemes move the needle in terms of productivity or other indicators? And these measures should be published to support public scrutiny, accountability and debate, so that we can meaningfully speak of genuine participation in policy-making.

Before I leave the subject of supporting the development of local firms, I would like to suggest one new approach that can be experimented with in incentive design. We currently award incentives to MNCs and local SMEs. These incentives are tied to fulfilling certain conditions like meeting total business spending, headcount and/or fixed asset investment targets. Can some of the incentives to MNCs be designed in such a way as to avoid a more generous degree of incentivisation if the MNC works with local partners to share know-how and gives the local firm a stake in the new investment?

This approach is not novel and has been attempted in other countries. There are risks associated with this as it might be seen as pursuing an nativist agenda of grooming local champions to compete with the MNCs, thus deterring MNC investment into Singapore. But, Sir, those risks can be managed, by only awarding such a conditional incentive in fields where there are sufficient local firms who could make reasonably good partners to the MNC while not being involved in a domain that is substantially competitive with the MNC.

It is worth experimenting with such an approach. Incentivising the development of MNCs and SMEs need not be a zero sum game. Of course, there are various schemes in place to encourage MNCs to work with local firms. But this approach of building a local partnership conditional element into the incentive package to secure new MNC investments, is currently not being used, to the best of my knowledge.

Next, Sir, I would like now to talk about how we can help our local workers better adapt to the winds of change that will blow from industry disruption. As I shared earlier, it is never easy to rally the energy to change when things seem fine. Many of our workers are in jobs that are at-risk from industry disruption in five to 15 years' time. There are a number of programmes in place that aim to address this like the Professional Conversion Programme, or PCP. However, for workers in at-risk sectors, for example, drivers were at risk from autonomous vehicles in the next 10 years, can we do more to educate them about the need to consider reskilling and switching industries lest they become unemployed in their 40s and 50s?

For example, can MTI's economic agencies support and catalyse future-ready industry groups in fields like solar, urban farming and AI, for example, to form trade associations and chambers, or TACs; and then, can these TACs be nudged and supported by Government to run campaigns to encourage workers from sunset industries with relevant skills to reskill and consider joining their industries.

Government agencies can also use social media tools to target reskilling social media ad campaigns specifically at workers and such at-risk industries. Existing programmes require workers to seek them out. We need a national effort that is more proactive rather than reactive to nudge workers who are at risk to start thinking what their future career journey and how they can mitigate those risks. This effort is needed even in industries that are cyclically doing well under COVID-19 but face longer term existential threats. For example, while some sectors of the retail sector have done very well during COVID-19, wholesale and retail has been identified as the sector most vulnerable to displacement in Singapore due to automation, according to a 2018 study.

Next, Sir, I would like to ask whether our education system is producing the skills the economy demands, and if not, what is being done to revisit our educational or economic planning? In 2020, Polytechnic fresh graduates found it significantly harder to land good jobs. Six months after graduation, around 12% were unemployed and over 30% were in part-time or temporary jobs. Minister Vivian Balakrishnan said last year that there will be 60,000 new jobs created in the infocomm sector over just the next three years, but our education system is only producing 2,800 infocomm graduates yearly. This barely supplies 5% of the demand. We should carefully review our efforts to ramp up capacity in our education system for high demand skills and encourage students to consider these.

Next, sir, let me touch on internships and training attachments. This is a subject that is of current concern. Given the current state of the job market, many graduates of IHLs have taken on internships, traineeships and part-time work for their first jobs, partly, one assumes, because of the relative lack of attractive, full-time positions. More than one in five fresh graduates from our four local Autonomous Universities were in part-time or temporary employment in 2020. As a proportion of the newly graduated workforce, they more than tripled from 7% in 2019 to 22.3% in 2020. Recent Government efforts have seen the creation of programmes such as the SGUnited Traineeship and SG Mid-Career Programme. Private firms like Google have also launched special trainee programmes during COVID-19. I have filed a Parliamentary Question on whether our IHLs can help our students gain sufficient access to internships in future-ready, disruptive industry sectors.

Here, I would like to speak about how our economic agencies can possibly engage companies in disruptive industry sectors who have no physical presence in Singapore as yet, to take on Singaporeans for traineeships and internships such as the SGUnited Traineeship.

Sir, for years, I used to think of my job in terms of putting on a tie and travelling into a physical office. But in this day and age, to work in a company, you need not report to work in a physical office. You can be an intern or trainee in a company by taking part in online meetings, undergoing online training, engaging with customers, suppliers and stakeholders virtually and so on and so forth. And there are companies abroad at the cutting edge of their industries who do not yet have a physical presence in Singapore. Can we consider including some of these companies in such programmes? We should select only the most promising companies for inclusion. The benefit to Singapore would be that Singaporeans would get the benefit of training, the skills, knowledge and culture that resides in these cutting edge firms. Another benefit is that the company, if it finds the quality of workers it engages as trainees and interns high, would consider locating a physical presence here.

Before I leave the subject of skills training, I would like to repeat my call to enable SkillsFuture credits to be transferable among family members, a subject on which I have filed a Parliamentary Question previously. I have received feedback from a number of older constituents who are keen to transfer their SkillsFuture credits to their children, nephews or nieces, to help them navigate the turbulent waters of the current job market.

Next, Sir, I would like to speak about the localisation of jobs. There has been much discussion on striking a good balance between foreign workers and local Singaporeans. We know that in many industries, such as construction, for example, we are more reliant on foreign manpower than other developed countries are. There is a need to ensure a strong core of skilled, capable Singaporeans in key industries. It is also desirable to foster skills transfer from foreigners to locals.

On localising jobs, I would like to speak about working conditions for lower wage workers.

The Government has said that the progressive wage model will be rolled out to more industries. But, in some jobs, even if we manage to raise wages through some policy device or other, we may find that Singaporeans may not want to take up those jobs because of the conditions of work. Are workers in that role provided with adequate tools, protective gear and training? Are working hours and mandated break times sufficient? Are conditions of work made as physically comfortable and safe as they are in other countries? Is the culture in the workplace sufficiently respectful of the worker?

My point is that even if we increase pay, Singaporeans may not want these jobs if they perceive that conditions of work are not good.

I would suggest that in sectors where we struggle to find enough Singaporeans, particularly low-wage sectors, the MOM and MTI benchmark conditions of work in other developed countries where there are more locals employed at higher productivity levels in that sector, to understand what the gaps are in conditions of work, and take steps to work with industry bodies to plug those gaps.

There is a lot at stake in this drive to raise pay and productivity in low-skilled jobs. Low-skilled workers are especially vulnerable. Workers in such jobs are often one unfortunate accident away from destitution. One man I spoke to on my house visits did everything right, he and his wife saved up, worked hard, lived frugally, only for him to be injured at his job and be plunged into relative poverty.

Before I leave the subject of workers, I would repeat the call I made earlier in relation to company incentives – for programmes that aim to address job market weakness, promote reskilling and so on, like Skillsfuture, SGUnited Traineeships and so on, let us undertake rigorous audits of outcomes that are made public, to ensure return on investment and facilitate course corrections or enhancements.

Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak about our fiscal stance. Many have questioned the timing of the hike in petrol duties and the levying of GST on small-value imported items, given the fragile state the economy is still in. The Leader of the Opposition has shared some concerns about the petrol duty hike, with which I agree. I would like to make the point that before broad-based taxes are hiked that could have an inflationary impact more generally, maybe even opening the door to profiteering, could the Government consider raising taxes on transactions in the property sector by way of taxes such as stamp duty and additional buyer's stamp duties, but only for more expensive properties.

Such a fiscal move would be progressive and would impact the capital gains made by sellers in the higher end of the property market. Hence the impact on the broader economy may be less than say a broad-based tax hike. A tax on such a class of capital gains will not run the risk of unintended inflationary effects and will not damage work incentives. Of course, such a move may not raise as much revenue as a broad-based tax hike such as hiking corporate tax or GST for example, but the former can be considered to reduce the need for and extent of a broad-based tax hike.

In conclusion, Sir, as we face an uncertain future, as the COVID-19 pandemic winds its way to what is hopefully its end, as industries get disrupted and uncertainty casts its shadow over our workers and companies, let us bear in mind a few important truths that I have tried to flesh out in this speech. Let us always anticipate foreseeable change rather than react when change hits, even when things may be fine now. The proactive will succeed over the reactive.

Let us nudge our stakeholders to recalibrate the balance in our economy towards local firms and Singaporean workers, but in ways that still embrace the role of MNCs and foreign workers where they add value. It is not a zero-sum game. And it is useful for all of us to bear this in mind – not only in Government.

There are win-win approaches to drive towards these outcomes. Let us bear in mind that it is cultures and mindsets that are critical for change to happen. But at the same time, let us not treat cultures and mindsets as some rigid monolithic entity or a black box. Existing cultures and mindsets, existing behaviour patterns are there for a reason. They are usually not simply irrational. Let us investigate those reasons. Such as, work conditions for jobs that Singaporeans shun that I spoke about earlier, and try to fix them with the tools that we have, so as to catalyse change in cultures and mindsets.

Lastly, Sir, let us never allow schemes to become black boxes into which fiscal resources get poured. Let us rigorously audit the impact of our policies and budget and plan for such measurement and publish the results to support informed public debate, consensus formation and genuine policy co-creation. We need to score an "A" for outcomes, not only an "A" for effort.

Mr Speaker: Mr Joshua Thomas Raj.

1.00 pm

Mr Raj Joshua Thomas (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, I am heartened that the Deputy Prime Minister included in this year’s Budget a section titled “Strengthening our Social Compact”.

The Deputy Prime Minister shared that many persons who took part in the Emerging Stronger Conversations expressed their wish for a fair, equal and caring society, with more support for vulnerable groups, such as low-wage workers.

One particular group of vulnerable workers are outsourced workers like cleaners, security officers, landscape workers and maintenance staff, whom I will be speaking about today, and, in particular, with regard to their working conditions. Incidentally, Member Mr Leon Perera had addressed this as one of his points earlier and he has kind of stolen my thunder a little bit. But I am glad that this is an issue that has raised widespread concern about.

Before I go on, Sir, may I declare, my interest as the President of the Security Association Singapore and the Director of a security company.

Sir, by way of definition, outsourced workers are workers who are employed by a service provider, for example, a cleaning company, but deployed to a service buyer’s premises, for example a shopping centre or condominium.

Under the Workplace Safety and Health Act (or WSHA), a service buyer at whose premises outsourced workers are deployed, is treated as an employer, with all of the duties and responsibilities incumbent on an employer under the Act. In other words, service buyers and service providers share responsibility for outsourced workers at site. However, because outsourced workers do not work at their employer’s premises but that of the service buyers, their conditions of work are determined primarily by service buyers.

Service buyers have control over at least four broad areas at their premises.

First is the actual work area of outsourced workers. Workers should not be expected to work for extended periods of time in the sun, for example, or at places that are inherently dangerous without safeguards, like locations at height. Guardrooms should be adequately ventilated. The provision of a proper work area concerns infrastructure and this is, in most cases, the sole preserve of service buyers who are the building owners. Service buyers, therefore, need to do their part to ensure proper work areas in their buildings. Even better, such provision should be made at the design stage of new buildings.

Second is the provision of proper rest areas and facilities, including washrooms. In January last year, Sir, I was alerted through the Security Association that at an ultra-luxury condominium along Grange Road had refused to allow outsourced workers to use any toilet in the condominium. The MCST had, instead, installed a portable toilet in a secluded area of the basement carpark for the workers to use. I visited the site myself and I took some photos. The area where the portable toilet was located was not well lighted and abutted a forested area.

Even worse, there was no water pumped to the toilet on the weekends. Workers had to scoop water from a dustbin outside the portable toilet to bring in with them, in order to flush the toilet and to wash their hands. This arrangement arose because residents had complained that outsourced workers had dirtied the condominium toilets. As we were in the process of engaging the managing agent and the MCST on this matter, the pandemic set in and the workers were then allowed to use the gym toilet during the circuit breaker. The gym toilet was, in any event, closed during this period. I do not know what the situation is now.

This example, is of course, an outlier. When Senior Minister of State Zaqy Mohamed launched the Tripartite Advisory on the Provision of Rest Areas, he did so while visiting Ikea, which provides excellent rest areas for all their workers, that outsourced workers could also avail. Ikea is, unfortunately, also an outlier and the reality at most sites is somewhere in between. Sadly, the norm is nearer to the portable toilet example than the Ikea exemplar.

The launch of the Tripartite Advisory on rest areas shows, however, that MOM and the tripartite partners are alive to the issue and have been quite gregarious and proactive to address it. But the advisory is not mandatory. We continue to see cleaners taking their breaks at basement carparks of shopping malls, and resting and eating their meals at bin centres at condominiums, or having no areas to rest at all, or even to place their belongings. I imagine, Sir, that resting, and eating at bin centres or at cooler pump rooms would have an effect on our workers’ health and safety, not to mention their dignity.

Senior Minister of State Zaqy announced in Parliament last year that a workfare grant would be launched in 2020 to support building owners and employers to provide rest areas for outsourced workers. I would like to ask MOM, Sir, the status of this grant: how much of it has been given out and how many building owners have availed of it and, if details are available, how many workers have benefited from it?

Senior Minister of State Zaqy also said that the grant would be launched with a view to eventually legislating this requirement. Sir, I urge that we hasten the enactment of legislation to make it compulsory for all property owners to provide designated rest areas for their outsourced workers.

The third area is proper rest times and working hours. The work that outsourced workers do can be strenuous, and break times should be planned for in their schedules, during which they should be undisturbed. In an article on outsourced workers by The New Paper in November 2018, an elderly cleaner was quoted as saying that people who saw her resting would complain to her superiors despite that she was resting in between her work slots. In the security association, we receive from time to time complaints about security officers sleeping – only to discover, after investigation, that they were doing so at their designated rest times. And there should be no doubt, Sir, that if it so pleases workers to sleep during their designated break times, they are entitled to do so because it is their personal time.

Related to my earlier point on the provision of rest areas, because most building owners do not provide a designated rest area, outsourced workers have to find some nook or cranny to rest, or have to do so at their actual workplace, like the guard rooms, in full view of the public.

As regards working hours, I would like to highlight, in particular, the working hours of security officers. The norm is for officers to work 12-hour shifts. Up to the beginning of this year, officers generally would work six-day weeks. From this year, officers have a possible work permutation where they can work two 5-day weeks and two 6-day weeks in a month. So, four days are off. But they still work 12-hour shifts. Taking into consideration roughly two hours of travelling to and fro and eight hours of sleep, officers have around just two hours of personal time per working day with their families and for themselves. If they need more personal time, they would have to cannibalise their sleeping hours. So, all these complaints of security officers sleeping on the job, of course, Sir, they are sleeping because they have not had enough sleep.

Sir, when I was running a security agency, I would join my officers from time to time on their 12-hour shifts at site. I would wear the security officer’s uniform, like an undercover boss. Of course, my officers knew who I was – I was undercover not to check on them but to look at the working conditions on the ground.

Sir, the job is not easy. It can be exhausting. There are many things to do – from dealing with public enquiries to patrolling, to marshalling traffic and ensuring paperwork is up-to-date and, sometimes, these must be done concurrently. And then there is dealing with difficult members of the public, which I personally encountered while I was on shift with my officers. It is difficult, Sir, to remain focused and alert as a security officer for the entirety of a 12-hour shift.

My view is that it is more reasonable to have eight to 10-hour shifts – eight hours for the day shifts, which are generally more busy; and nine to 10 hours for the night shift. This will, of course, translate to higher costs for buyers as it necessitates an additional shift of workers. Buyers have, therefore, been averse to this. However, such long hours on a long-term basis would undoubtedly affect officers’ health – physical, mental and social.

We must, therefore, take a stand and do something about it. Buyers must bite the bullet. If they want security, they must be prepared to pay for it and our workers should not suffer to save their costs. Likewise, security service providers must also take responsibility for their own workers and insist on reasonable working hours and they must also ensure that higher prices that buyers pay translate to higher wages for their employers. In this regard, I call on the tripartite partners to work towards regularising working hours of security officers towards eight to 10- hour shifts. The PWM for the security sector moving forward should incorporate this reduction of shift durations, to make sure that it does not lead to a concomitant drop in officers’ gross wages. Importantly, the Government must take the lead and should move procurement of security manpower services towards eight to 10-shifts.

Fourth, buyers should ensure that outsourced workers at their site are required to do only the tasks for which they were deployed and that they are trained for. Often, buyers treat outsourced workers as general workers or odd-job labourers and call on them to carry out tasks that do not fall under their scope of work, for example, cleaners being asked to perform electrical works. The unfortunate incident in 2015 of a security officer falling into an elevator shaft while he was trying to prise the lift doors open is a case in point. This was not something the officer was trained to do, nor was it within his scope of work. He was asked to assist and he was being helpful. Sadly, he succumbed to his injuries.

Sir, as is apparent in each of the four areas I have outlined, service buyers are the prime movers in ensuring proper working conditions of outsourced workers. Therefore, in order for us to deal with these longstanding issues, we need to introduce measures that mandate and encourage buyers to make provision for proper work conditions for outsourced workers. In this regard, I propose, for consideration by MOM and the tripartite partners, that a consolidated Tripartite Advisory be issued for buyers of outsourced services on the provisions they should make in the above four areas. This would incorporate and go beyond the existing advisory on the provision of rest areas.

I have thus proposed three measures that build on existing mechanisms and/or positions already announced by the Government: legislation making the provision of rest areas for outsourced workers mandatory; the regularisation of security officer working hours in the security officers PWM; and the promulgation of a consolidated tripartite advisory for buyers of outsourced services. May I also say, Sir, that I support Mr Fahmi Aliman’s proposal that rest areas not be considered as commercial GFA. By my estimates, based on publicly available data, Sir, these measures will apply to, and benefit, around 120,000 workers.

At this point, I would like to thank our essential workers and our outsourced workers: our cleaners, security officers, waste collectors and maintenance staff, who continued to work to keep Singapore going during the circuit breaker and who continue to be on the frontlines.

Sir, an important part of our social compact has to be a commitment to take care of the people who take care of us. It must become part of our culture. It must become part of our workplace culture. When we have built this, Sir, we will no longer see people looking at a tired worker resting and think that this is something that they should complain about; we will not see rich residents demanding that outsourced workers not be allowed to use their luxurious facilities. In fact, what we will see is them crying foul that workers are only allowed to use a portable toilet. We will see building owners willing and happy to use up precious GFA so that workers can have proper breaks. We will progress towards a fairer, a more equal and a more caring society. And, Sir, we will emerge stronger, together and we will do so at all levels. Sir, I support the Budget. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

1.15 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Speaker, Sir, earlier this month the House debated the issue of sustainable development at length. It declared climate change a global emergency and recognised the role that multiple stakeholders will have to play to sustainably develop Singapore.

Last week, we also heard about the Singapore Green Plan, with the Deputy Prime Minister highlighting the building of a sustainable home for all as one of the key thrusts of this year's Budget. In my speech, I will be talking on the need to protect our natural capital before talking about promoting green transport, as well as about the proposed petrol tax.

I will then touch briefly on making progress in our manufacturing and construction sector and the support Singapore should give for climate change at the global and regional levels.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a key area addressed by the Singapore Green Plan is, of course, our greenery. One aspect of the Plan is the one-million-tree movement which aims to plant a million trees by 2030.

In response to our Parliamentary Question I filed earlier this year, Minister Desmond Lee shared that the one million trees to be planted under the Plan will sequester an estimated 78,000 tonnes of carbon.

While I do welcome this measure, a glaring omission under the Singapore Green Plan is a lack of commitment to provide greater legal protection for our secondary forest. Under the Plan, the Government aims to set aside one thousand hectares for green spaces of which 200 hectares will be for new nature parks. It is important to note that even though NParks oversees the management of activities within nature parks and that activities which may damage trees within nature parks are regulated by a Subsidiary Legislation under the Parks and Trees Act, the mechanisms by which these activities are regulated, as well as the penalties for contravention, are much less robust than those applicable to areas designated as nature reserves in the same Act. Moreover, the fate of other secondary forest spaces, which are not currently used as nature parks, hangs in the balance as they may be cleared for development.

The Workers' Party thus reiterates its call on the Government to commit to providing more secondary forests with greater legal protection, with some of these areas regulated as nature reserves, while simple recreation areas could be allowed in other areas, but with more stringent rules and penalties than is currently enforced in public parks.

By legislating to this end, Parliament will send a clear signal to not only future generations, but to various actors, including contractors, Ministries and Statutory Boards, and the Government itself, that the destruction of forest areas will come at a cost. The reason erroneous clearing of forested spaces in Kranji woodlands is a prime example, where the Jurong Town Corporation (JTC) said that it was caught unaware of the clearing of plots of land earmarked for future use and for which an environmental baseline study was reportedly being carried out.

Thus far, the contractor has only gotten away with stern warnings despite clearing forests, while JTC has not faced any legal consequences. As we await the Government to explain to the House its findings on the Kranji woodlands case, I hope that the Government will also commit to begin providing greater legal protection for our secondary forests and green spaces.

Next, I touch on promoting green transport. In order to move towards a more sustainable future for Singaporeans, we should also take a critical look at how our people move. Greening our transport infrastructure is an endeavour that, like other goals in sustainable development, must not only meet our need for environmental sustainability, but must also meet our social needs in an economically viable way.

Transport is the third largest sector from which our greenhouse gas emissions from fuel combustion are derived, accounting for about 15.7% of our emissions. Of these, the biggest contributors are the use of diesel, accounting for roughly 63% of transport emissions, and the use of petrol, accounting for 33%.

Next, I move on to Electric Vehicles (EVs) and battery swaps. In my Budget debate speech last year when I commented on the then target of 28,000 charging points, I said that even assuming a 30% conversion from the current vehicle population to EVs, we would still only end up with one charging point for every 10 EVs by 2030. I had asked whether we should even be contented with this ratio. I therefore welcome the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement in his Budget speech last week that the Government now plans to increase the number of charging points for EVs from the original target of 28,000 to 60,000 by 2030. This is going to be a step-up from the over 1,900 charging points, 1,400 in public carparks, which we currently have as a January 2021.

In my Budget debate speech last year, I also urged the Government to consider the alternative of battery swap stations which have the advantage of speed, ensuring the load on our power grid can be managed well, while providing ready infrastructure for battery recycling. I said that this has really been tested in China and should be a key consideration here. Later on, in March 2020, in response to my colleague, the hon Member for Aljunied, Mr Leon Perera, the Government said that it was studying the potential of battery swapping as a complement to charging and that this consideration will influence the final design of our EV network.

Can the Government provide the House with an update on its findings on the potential use of battery swapping technology in Singapore?

I now move on to EV chargers, charging points and carpark designs. While it is important to have a good number of charging points, we should also bear in mind that these numbers will be insufficient if we do not get the other details right.

For instance, will these points enable fast charging? What is fast charging? Can we do in one hour as opposed to eight or 12 hours perhaps, which we can expect from the domestic charging rate? But even at half an hour or one hour, will this be too slow and inconvenient for consumers who are used to spending five to 10 minutes in the petrol station. And assuming that these charging points are all fast charging points, if we want an efficient system, we will still need to ensure EVs have correspondingly quick-charging capabilities as different EVs may have different capabilities.

As the charging technology improves over the coming years with the proliferation of EVs all over the world, we should also bear in mind the possibility of older EVs operating together with newer EVs may slow down the efficiency in the use of chargers.

Another factor to consider is the critical number of charging points required in all residential, commercial car parks and other public carparks, as well as the design of the carparks vis-à-vis the locations of the charging points.

Imagine a situation where you have 100, 200 cars coming back after work to an HDB carpark, with each taking, for the sake of discussion, say 20 minutes to charge their car. Given the present design, will we have bottleneck issues to address? After all, Singapore is not like the US or Australia where most people live in landed homes and have the luxury of charging their vehicles in their own garages overnight.

Fast charging is of course critical, but until we reach the stage where every or most of the carpark lots come with a charging unit, most of the present HDB, public and commercial carparks products are not adequately designed to prevent bottlenecks or congestion caused by more than a few cars waiting for the current few charging units available at each carpark. The design of hundreds or more of our existing carparks will need to be evaluated to avoid the likely congestion scenario I have described. I look forward to the Government's assurance that these concerns are being looked at and if so, to share details of any stepped-up plans to address them.

I remember a conversation I had once with a driver in China waking up to queue for his car to be charged at 3.00 am to 4.00 am every morning. We cannot allow such scenario to happen in Singapore. We cannot afford the loss of productivity this will entail.

Given the transformation of vehicle population internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles to EVs and the resulting proliferation of large numbers of EV charging points in time to come, it may be timely to ask about its likely effect on our electricity generation infrastructure.

While there may be an electricity supply glut now, the Government needs to plan for the additional electricity generation required for EVs in the years to come such that a step-up usage will be smooth and importantly, sustainable, and will at the same time not pose any strains on our power system at all times. And in answer to the House in January this year, Minister Tan See Leng alluded to how EVs were one of the drivers to increase electricity demand in the future. To this end. I hope the Government will give an update to this House on its current plan to step up the electricity generation specifically for use by EVs in the coming years.

Next, I touch on the phasing out of ICE vehicles. Previously, the Government has said it aims to phase out all ICE vehicles by 2040. This endeavour is by no means a small one given that I believe we have more than 900,000, almost a million vehicles, on our roads. Can the Government therefore provide the periodic milestone it aims to reach in this regard in the run-up to 2040, including Malaysian ICE vehicles on our roads, which I brought up last year too.

Further, while the Government announced last year that all newly purchased public buses will be electric or hybrid in nature, when does it envisage that our entire bus fleet will be fully electric.

I next touch on petrol tax. Mr Speaker, Sir, another aspect of a sustainable future transport landscape must be the provision of affordable and reliable transport options for our people and small businesses.

Deputy Prime Minister Heng announced in this year's Budget that he is going to increase the petrol duty. He gave the basis that, I quote, "usage-based tax has helped shape consumer behaviour towards a more efficient use of fuel or environmentally friendly alternatives". However, as I mentioned above our EV infrastructure is currently far from ready to allow large numbers of car owners to switch immediately to EVs.

So, aside from the Government wanting to raise tax revenue from this source, I think raising the petrol duty this abruptly on a basis of shaping consumer behaviour towards an environmentally friendly option, is in some sense putting the cart before the horse. Why was this hike not phased in with advance notice?

Just two years ago, in my Budget speech, I spoke against the diesel tax increase, highlighting that it would increase cost of doing business and cost of living. I think the increase of petrol duty may also increase cost of living which may be in these difficult times. As for rebates offered, unless the increase is only for a limited time like a year or two after which it will be adjusted downwards, such rebates are really short-term measures, and ultimately, owners, and even business owners, will have to face the full effect of the price increase later on. So, I hope while this abrupt increase may not be what we say in Chinese: 落进下石, it is certainly 雪上加霜 for many.

So, I repeat the call made by the Leader of the Opposition, the hon Member Mr Pritam Singh, for the Government to review this hike and to phase in the petrol tax hike in proportion to the actual growth of EV usage on the roads.

Next, I move on to progressing in our manufacturing and construction sector. In his Budget speech, the Deputy Prime Minister also reminded the House that the Government announced its Long-term Low-Emissions Development Strategy (LEDS) in 2020. In Singapore, our manufacturing and construction industries account for about 38.8% of total greenhouse gas emissions, the second largest sector after our energy sector which contributes about 41.87%.

While the decarbonisation of our electricity grid is but one way in which the manufacturing and construction sector will be able to reduce its emissions, what findings have the Government made so far in the study of emerging technologies under the LEDS which can help us decarbonise industrial processes in this sector to move us closer to our updated periscopes?

Next, I talk about providing support at the global and regional levels. The Deputy Prime Minister also mentioned that Singapore will continue to play an active role at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations. As a key node in our globalised world economy, we are well-positioned to work with other countries to reduce global emissions. The threats of climate change, which this House will be familiar with, require us to do more actively in a similar vein. We also need to work more closely with our neighbours in ASEAN to curb regional emissions. While the growth of emissions has slowed down for some of our neighbours, this has increased for others, and more work needs to be done. Can the Government thus provide the House with specific future plans to work at both global and regional levels to mitigate climate change?

Before I end, I want to touch on two other issues beyond climate change.

First, Deputy Prime Minister Heng announced in his Budget speech that the Government will partner the Community Development Councils (CDCs) to give all Singapore households $100 worth of CDC vouchers to be used at participating shops and hawker centres. He said he hoped that the vouchers would bring more business to our heartland shops. I am glad that he thinks that our heartland shops could do with this help. I agree that more can be done to help our small businesses in our heartlands. It is challenging times for many such businesses.

Recently, a resident who own a mini-mart in a heartland shared with me about his business challenges. Besides challenges from the supermarkets in the area, he also lamented on the challenges from Fairprice on Wheels. He wishes that the Government can consider how to give more space to SMEs, especially when it comes to competition from Government-linked businesses.

Next, I move on to the issue of commercial and industrial rents. Let me declare that I am a proprietor for my own law firm business. I have previously spoken about the concerns SMEs had with rentals during the debate on the Resilience and Solidarity Budgets. To its credit, the Government stepped in to provide up to $900 million in cash grants to landlords for rental relief. In addition, the landlords also receive $1.8 billion dollars in property tax rebate.

But this does not tell the whole story. In a Straits Times article, it was quoted that many SMEs did not want to go through the process of confronting their landlords for fear of making things worse. As SMEs have comparatively less cash buffer compared to large enterprises, SMEs may find it hard to pay the rental on time. This only slows down the recovery for SMEs and could have the undesirable effect of entrenching the positions of multinational corporations (MNCs) and Government-linked Corporations (GLCs).

I call upon the Government to see if there is scope to have tapered support for SMEs in rentals over this period. In the medium term, the study of the commercial and industrial rental markets, as it stands, is necessary, with it studying offerings of low rent commercial and industrial spaces managed by HDB and JTC respectively.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, acknowledging the building of a sustainable home for all in Budget 2021 is a timely move. When we look at the threats of climate change today, when we look at how much further we must go to protect our natural capital, to promote green transport and manufacturing, to provide more support to our people as we sustainably develop Singapore, it is clear that we have much work to do.

At the debate on the climate change Motion earlier this month, Minister Grace Fu stressed that "sustainability has always been a part of Singapore's DNA because we have always pursue a balance between economic growth and protecting our environment since our early years".

But it merits mention that this pursuit while leaving us with good economic growth over the decades was also what left us with the limited green space today. Our understanding of our environment today has become much more sophisticated than in the past, in part due to advances in our understanding of climate change. Likewise, our notion of sustainability must also advance with times. We must do much more to address these threats we have never seen before.

1.32 pm

Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): Mr Speaker, Sir, a crisis tests the mantle of any society and generation. It can tear us apart or rally us together. COVID-19 is our test.

Around the world, we observe social and political fractures, caused or exacerbated by the pandemic.

In the UK, more than half of Britons surveyed by thinktank Demos resented lockdown rule breakers and people who do not wear masks, much more compared to only 33% of non-Brexiteers resenting the Brexiteers.

In the US, wearing a mask was so politicised at one point that it becomes a symbol of which political party one supports.

In big western cities, attacks were launched on Asians. A Singaporean student was attacked in London last year at the beginning of the pandemic. Some elderly Asians also reportedly suffered violent attacks in California, a problem that was simmering since the pandemic began. Both were reported to be racially motivated.

Women in many countries were hit disproportionately compared to men. In Latin America, women were 50% more likely than men to lose a job in the pandemic’s first month. McKinsey also reported that female job losses is 1.8 times higher than male job losses in the US and India.

Seniors in some countries suffer greater income reduction or job losses. A consequence of this is poorer or loss of healthcare benefits. Seniors in countries with government-funded medical benefits or insurance may still have access to basic services, but those in countries without would naturally suffer.

We see how societies can fracture further and deeper along political, racial, gender and age lines when under pressure.

Singapore is not spared from this same pressure brought upon by the pandemic. Thankfully, we have not observed the same fractures or of the same extent here. Yet, we must do our best to prevent them.

How we respond to this crisis of our generation is important. Will Singapore emerge stronger and feel stronger as a people? Or will we look stronger but feel more apart instead?

Therefore, I echo the importance of strengthening social compact, as highlighted in this Budget.

In this speech, I will talk about empowering our seniors and women in the workforce, so as to enhance overall well-being and strengthen our sense of togetherness.

On empowering seniors. Over the past years, much has been done to better support senior employment in Singapore, with Government initiatives such as the Special Employment Credit and Retirement and Re-Employment Act introduced. CPF contribution rate increment for workers above the age of 55 was also announced in August 2019. Yet, we still encounter seniors who want to work but struggle to secure suitable and adequate employment.

Most recently, while visiting the Geylang East Market and Food Centre in my constituency, I met an "auntie" who was in her late 60s. We greeted each other warmly before her tone took a turn and asked me, "MP, is there any Government rule or law that prohibits a person from working beyond a specific age?"

I told her of course not. Curious, I asked her what prompted her question.

She replied, "I want to work. But my employer said that I am old and wanted me to be redeployed to a job with less scope and less pay. And after I reach the end of the re-employment age, I will have no job. But I am still very fit, I can still do my original job. I need the income too."

"Auntie’s" predicament is not unique. In serving our residents, we would have met other seniors who face similar challenges. They are often the first to go and last to be hired.

Ageism is unfortunately rather rooted in Singapore. Despite an ageing workforce, ageist mindsets can be found in many workplace settings.

Negative stereotypes about older people – that they are slower, weaker, more rigid or less productive – can significantly hinder the deployment of precious human resource and discourage development even as we promote lifelong learning.

Recruitment agency Randstad reported in a 2020 survey on ageism in the workplace that 57% of Singaporeans feel training opportunities get fewer as they grow older and 64% of those aged 55 and above feel this way.

Such perceived loss of opportunities affect morale and career prospects, and eventually impact self-esteem and the sense of togetherness with the rest of Singapore.

We must proactively combat ageism in the workplace and recognise the value that senior workers can offer. Moreover, our ageing workforce means that employers have to accept the reality of an increasingly mature manpower supply. Hence, our default thinking should be to find ways to leverage senior workers’ strengths and not find ways to undermine or get rid of them.

To this end, I would suggest the following.

Push companies to review HR policies and encourage them to make it an SOP to hold conversations with senior workers on meaningful re-employment or re-deployment. To be fair, there is a need for renewal so that younger workers have a chance to rise up and accumulate their own experiences. But where senior workers are still fit and keen to work, companies should discuss options that allow senior workers to preserve their work and compensation. Let us not automatically filter them out.

Two, the world is always changing and firms constantly have to change with corresponding strategies. Similarly, firms can adapt its working environment, job design and processes to be enabling for senior workers. Technology enablers are available, productivity does not have to suffer. Moreover, the jobs for senior workers of tomorrow will be increasingly intellectual and less backbreaking. So, the earlier we get ready for an ageing workforce, the better.

Third, for senior workers who have to leave or wish to give a shot in a different endeavour, have in place a centre that focuses on matching these seniors to new jobs or opportunities that allow them to contribute socially, for example, volunteerism. This can help redirect precious senior human resource to areas where there are unfulfilled needs.

And lastly, continue to encourage our seniors to stay positive and embrace learning. In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] A crisis tests the mantle of any society and generation. COVID-19 is our test.

Around the world, we observe how societies can fracture deeper along political, racial, gender and age lines when under pressure. Although Singapore has yet to experience similar or severe social fragmentation, we cannot afford to take it lightly. Hence, I agree with the importance of strengthening social compact highlighted in this Budget. Discord will lead to fragmentation whereas staying united will allow us to emerge stronger.

Here, I would like to talk about empowering the elderly in the workforce, improving their overall wellbeing and strengthening our sense of solidarity.

Over the last few years, Singapore has introduced measures such as the Special Employment Credit and Retirement and Re-employment Act to support the employment of older Singaporeans. The Government also announced in August 2019 an increase in CPF contribution rates for workers aged 55 and above.

It is heartening to hear many examples of re-employment and the elderly staying in the workforce on media platforms from time to time.

Just now I shared the story of an 70-year-old auntie whom I met during a recent visit to Geylang East Market and Food Centre in my constituency. Auntie’s predicament is not unique. In serving our residents, we often encounter elderly people who faced difficulties in finding or staying in work. They are often the "first to leave, the last to be hired" group. Unfortunately, ageism is rather rooted in Singapore. Despite an ageing workforce and active government promotion, ageist mindsets can be found in many workplaces. It can significantly hinder the deployment of precious human resource. The employees feel that loss of opportunities can affect morale and career prospects, and eventually impact self-esteem and their sense of togetherness with the rest of Singapore.

We must proactively combat ageism in the workplace and promote the idea of "active ageing". We should think hard on how we can leverage older workers’ strengths, rather than try to get rid of them.

I have a few suggestions:

First, push companies to review their HR policies, encourage them to make it a SOP to hold conversations with older workers on re-employment or job redeployment. If they are fit and keen to work, companies should discuss options that allow older workers to preserve their work and compensation, not automatically filter them out.

Second, companies can adjust their work environment, design and process to meet the needs of older workers. Companies can make good use of technology to help them. Moreover, future jobs for older workers will be increasingly intellectual and less backbreaking. Hence, it will be much more effective to prepare for an ageing workforce early.

Third, for older workers who have to leave or wish to try other jobs, the Government could consider setting up a centre to help them match with new jobs or opportunities. For example, with their years of experience, they can serve as a consultant to provide guidance or become a volunteer. This will redirect valuable human resource of older workers to areas of need.

Finally, we should continue to encourage the elderly to stay positive and embrace lifelong learning.

(In English): Singapore is firmly set on our path towards a digital economy and Smart Nation. We must spare no effort to prevent inadvertently creating new gaps or exacerbating existing gaps as we transform. Digital empowerment is important. We need smart women for a Smart Nation.

A 2016 Accenture report found that digital fluency can accelerate the closing of gender gaps, as countries can achieve gender equality some 25 to 40 years faster. Digitally empowering more women will also help to address the pressing digital talent shortage worldwide and generate greater economic growth.

Looking ahead, we can anticipate that the strive towards a future economy would mean that there are more job opportunities, better career prospects and wage growth in the tech and innovation sectors. If we do not help women to capture these opportunities, they risk falling behind further.

In Singapore, while there is no significant change in the employment rate of women before and after pandemic at its peak – thanks to our very sound and supportive and progressive Government system and the workforce in Singapore – there remains a need for us to still step up in digitally empowering our girls and women.

Based on a study conducted by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG), Singapore’s woman representation in technology is about 41%. Though this percentage is higher than that of neighbouring Southeast Asian countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines and Vietnam, it is lower than the overall women representation in Singapore’s workforce. Notably, however, Singapore female university graduates who studied technology lags behind other Southeast Asian countries at only 29%.

We have hidden gems within our women population, waiting to be discovered or for the opportunity to shine.

A dear friend of mine, Nurul Sharafudin, is to me a great example who had an amazing journey as a young Singapore woman in tech. Nurul started out as an MOE Arts teacher – she was happy and well loved by her students. But driven by her passion for learning and trying new things, she took a courageous move to switch career path. She applied for an entry position in Oracle. She stayed curious, acquired new digital skills, sought out her own mentor. And today, in just a few years, she is responsible for Oracle’s Business Operations Organisational Strategy and Programmes in Japan APAC. Today, Nurul is a confident woman, a regional leader in an American tech MNC, and a mother of two no less, making her mark in the tech sector and giving back by mentoring many others.

Nurul’s journey shows us how digital empowerment can make a positive big difference. It opens new doors and offers many more opportunities.

But Nurul's experience is perhaps not a common one, yet. Now and then, I still receive requests for help or hear of stories from residents who completed courses and tried hard to switch to a career in tech but were unsuccessful. We must help them.

To be fair, Singapore has, in recent years, stepped up our effort to promote women in tech with initiatives, such as SG Women in Tech by the IMDA and the Women Luminaries Programme by PayPal and our four local Autonomous Universities. But, we can do more to: one, introduce more scholarships and education awards to encourage girls to study technology and related subjects in school; two, continue to emphasise public commitment to cultivating girls and women in tech in Singapore; three, drive board agendas and have companies set goals to recruit and cultivate more women in tech roles, and create environments that are enabling for talents, both men and women alike, with family commitments; and four, create and facilitate more peer-networking and mentoring platforms for women or aspiring women in tech.

In conclusion, I fully agree with the theme of this Budget – to emerge stronger, and a strong social compact is critical. The Government's effort in addressing gaps, ensuring fair distribution of resources and opportunities and engendering an inclusive society cannot be understated. But I believe we can still do more to help Singaporeans emerge stronger and feel that they are stronger, not weaker.

When Singaporeans feel that they are progressing in tandem with the nation, there will be a stronger sense of togetherness, a stronger sense of pride and fulfilment. With a strong national psychological resilience, I am confident we will weather any crisis, come what may. I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

1.47 pm

Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome Budget 2021 announced by the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister on 16 February. The Budget, which allocates about 20% of our GDP, has provided continued support to fight the COVID-19 and the resources to accelerate our socio-economic transformation to a new and sustainable model.

The basic deficit of $31 billion is attributable to $11 billion for the Resilience Package and $24 billion spread over three years for the emerging stronger initiatives. This basic deficit can be easily covered by the NIR or Net Investment Return earned from our total financial assets of more than $1.35 trillion. This NIR is estimated to be $39.2 billion for FY2021.

However, since the Government's policy is to only use half of the NIR for spending every year, we can only use $19.6 billion to offset the basic deficit, which gives us an overall Budget deficit of $11 billion for FY2021.

If there is a need to help Singaporeans to survive and to do better, we think we should not hesitate to spend more, even up to the total NIR we earn every year. For the foreseeable future, we do not see any shortage of fiscal revenues.

Needless to say, we must ensure that the money spent will have a lasting effect on our people and give them the confidence to take ownership of and build their own futures. It is in this regard that I think Budget 2021 has fallen short.

Firstly, like the Budgets of previous years, many of the measures are short term, ad hoc and come with confusing names. Just like the Household Support Package, as an example. We have the GST Voucher Special, U-Save Special, Service and Conservancy Charges rebate, Edusave Top-ups, CDC Voucher and more.

With such a confusing array of schemes, it is difficult for Singaporeans to find any lasting reassurance or peace of mind and create long-term plans for their futures.

A true Resilience Package must contain long-term transparent and predictable schemes which Singaporeans will automatically qualify if they fall below a certain threshold. In this way, every Singaporean would know where they stand financially in every stage of their lives and how they can work towards a stable financial position.

Secondly, the Budget measures did not tackle the root cause of the problems of job security and a rising cost of living which still afflict Singaporeans today especially the middle class.

There is an urgent need to rebalance the local-foreign worker mix in our job market. Mr Yeoh Lam Keong, the former GIC Chief Economist and one of the founders of FOSG or the Future of Singapore Group, has pointed out that, and I quote, "our most fundamental economic weaknesses stem (from) our structural excessive dependence on foreign capital and foreign labour." So, in preparing for a post-COVID-19 future, should we not seize this opportunity to reduce our reliance on foreign labour?

I was disappointed that the Budget only adjusted the S Pass quota for the manufacturing sector for managing the local-foreign worker mix.

Currently, foreign workers account for, on the average, 40% of our workforce at all levels, whether Work Permit, S Pass or EP holders and many of the foreign workers have even taken the helm of our local companies.

The growing numbers of displaced PMETs joining the ranks of the private hire drivers and gig workers is the best final evidence of the shortcomings of the current employment and immigration policies.

The other urgent problem is the high cost of living and the heavy indirect tax burden of middle class Singaporeans. Housing prices has continued to surge during COVID-19 period. Other costs, like electricity, ERP and now, the petrol tax, are also increasing.

For Singaporeans above 50 years old, the worries over retirement and healthcare is worsening by the day. In 2021, Singaporeans will not only have to pay up to 35% more in MediShield Life premiums, but will also have to start paying CareShield premiums.

Seemingly, oblivious to all these pains of the middle class, the impending rise of the GST was brought up again during the Budget speech despite the Government agreeing that the GST is regressive in nature.

When the top quintile income earners contribute more than 80% of personal income tax revenue but only 60% of the GST revenues, I hope the Government would also admit that a tax system relying more on GST revenue will burden the middle class most, namely, those who do not earn enough to hit the higher income tax brackets, but do not qualify for GST Vouchers. These are also the people who have young families with children, spending most of their income on essentials.

Adding on social stress like the unnecessarily competitive Primary school education system and the yearly commitment of in-camp training for male Singaporeans, it is not difficult to understand how stressed middle class Singaporeans are.

However, without the participation of the middle-class, the economic transformation is doomed because there will not be enough players to create healthy competition in the market if only the top quintile Singaporeans are innovating. Perhaps, it is because of an impoverished middle class that we need more foreigners.

Hence, a good Budget must tackle the root cause of the problems with long-term, predictable policies and schemes, and it must aim to build a secure foundation of financial stability and social dignity for our Singaporeans.

With that objective in mind, we would like to make three major long-term policy recommendations to nudge the Budget in the correct direction.

The first recommendation is to introduce a living wage for the low-wage workers. The Singapore Progress Party (PSP) strongly believes that a Singaporean who has put in a day's work should be compensated sufficiently to allow him to live with dignity.

And we firmly believe that honouring our fellow Singaporeans must take priority over all other economic arguments and we should not wait for the Government to take another decade or two to slowly review the wages of the low-wage workers, sector-by-sector, through its Progressive Wage Model.

In 2019, Asst Prof Ng Kok Hoe and his team from the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy had conducted a minimum income standards study on what older households need to meet their basic needs. The study postulated that single elderly households aged over 65 needed $1,379 per month and single households aged 55 to 64 needed $1,721 per month. While not definitive, this provides a good benchmark to design a living wage policy.

Using this benchmark, we propose a living wage of $1,500 take-home pay for all local workers which translates into $2,055 in gross wages for a start. The Government could pay the main portion of the increase from 2021 to 2023 to allow businesses time to adjust. We estimate this will increase operating expenditure by about $1.6 billion in each of the next three years. The living wage will lift the wage share of the GDP, something that my colleague Ms Hazel Poa has recommended yesterday.

There is a consensus in this House that we should care for our essential workers who are also often low-wage workers. We think the best way to achieve that is to have the living wage. Low-income Singaporeans will be able to have peace of mind with a living wage rather than those usual ad hoc, short-term and unpredictable schemes offered by the Government.

The second recommendation is to level the playing field for our Singaporean talents in our very own job market.

While it is understandable that we need foreign workers to complement us, it puzzles me why the Government has allowed a wage disadvantage against the Singaporeans for the longest time.

This wage disadvantage against our local workers has arisen from the fact that foreigners are not included in the CPF system. While this disadvantage has been slightly reduced in the case of the Work Permit holders and the S Pass holders through the levy system, it is not the case for the EP holders. It has often been highlighted that this is a loophole for employers to exploit to the disadvantage of our Singaporean workers.

Hence, in order to level the playing field, we recommend imposing a $1,200 monthly levy on all EP holders immediately. The $1,200 amount is based on the employer's contribution and part of the employee's contribution. This is estimated to generate new operating revenue of $2.7 billion per annum. If the Government needs more revenue, this is a good option to consider.

This levy will differentiate the true foreign talents, who are high salaried and less affected by the $1,200 levy, from the foreign talents who are simply cheap labour that compete unfairly with our Singaporeans and whom our economy has become overly dependent on.

The third and last recommendation is to strengthen the social security for Singaporeans by having the Government pay for all the MediShield and CareShield insurance premiums. Base on our financial projections, most middle class Singaporeans cannot afford the MediShield and CareShield premiums in their old age. And this is not clearly explained to the people.

The average Singaporean can accumulate about $1 million in savings in his CPF account, if he had contributed continuously from 25 to 65 years old. With the contributions compounded at the CPF interest rates of 2.5% and 4% per annum for the Ordinary, Special and MediSave account respectively.

Ostensibly, all Singaporeans should have adequate retirement resources in their CPF account. This is the reason why our CPF system is rated as one of the best retirement schemes in the world. But like the many other accolades that we have received, it only tells half the story.

In reality, about half of the CPF members do not have enough money in their CPF account, even to satisfy the Basic Retirement Sum of $93,000. This is because in addition to retirement use, the Government has designated two additional uses for the CPF monies, namely purchasing HDB flats and topping up the MediSave account.

The MediSave account is designed to pay for all the MediShield and CareShield premiums and out-of-pocket medical expenses of a Singaporean and his dependent family members, including his parents. Yes, he or she is responsible for all his family members as far as medical expenses are concerned.

We estimated that the total premium paid by an average family of four, up to 65 years old for the parents, and 25 years old for the two children before they become independent, will cause a drain of $110, 000 from the parents' CPF resources. Considering that those premiums, if not withdrawn from the CPF account, they could have earned a compounded annual return of 4% over the years. In other words, if the family did not need to pay the MediShield and CareShield premiums, he would have an additional $110, 000 for retirement. Furthermore, if the premium increases by 10% every five years, which is highly possible, given that MediShield premium is going to go up 35% this year. The drain on the CPF account will be from $110, 000 to $246,000.

The MediShield and CareShield schemes are thus a big drag on the retirement resources of Singaporeans. And the current social security plans are highly unsatisfactory. The reason why CPF rules have to be tweaked frequently, it is not because that the Government had lost the CPF money in bad investment, like some fake news have it. Rather, it is because the Government knows that most Singaporeans do not have enough funds to cater for all the three uses. Hence, it is restricting withdrawals.

So, we recommend that the Government funds, the insurance premiums of the MediShield Life and CareShield scheme for all Singaporeans and PRs. This will increase operating expenditure by adjustable justifiable some of $2.6 billion per annum, which is only 0.5% of our GDP.

By taking away one of the sources of drain on the CPF funds, most Singaporeans will be able to satisfy the basic retirement sum of $93,000, and also not to have to worry about the unaffordable premiums in their old age. This means that two social security problems of Singaporeans are resolved by one policy. And if we relax, the withdrawal limit for MediSave at the same time, because more cash is now available in the account, we will resolve another financial problem for Singaporeans.

Managing healthcare cost is an on-going and complex matter, which requires many more policy and system changes. However, we believe our recommendation is a significant first step in the correct direction.

Sir, in total, the three recommendations will incur a net additional spending of $1.5 billion. The Government can decide whether it wants to reallocate existing resources to these recommendations, or allow the additional spending to provide more stimulus for the recovering economy.

We believe our recommendations will go a long way; helping to secure a foundation of financial stability and social dignity for Singaporeans. Only with this secure foundation, can we really emerge as one people. Sir, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Ms Gan Siow Huang.

2.07 pm

The Minister of State for Manpower (Ms Gan Siow Huang): Mr Speaker, I would like to make a clarification following hon Member Mr Leong Mun Wai's speech.

Mr Leong Mun Wai, in his speech, suggested that foreigners are taking the helm of companies in Singapore at the expense of locals, and he suggested that there should be a levy on all EP holders. The Singapore Government reviews the EP qualifying criteria constantly. We just did that last year as well. We do that so that there is constant rebalancing of the foreign and local talent mix in Singapore, and the intent is to strengthen the Singaporean Core. A blanket levy on EP holders is a signal to foreign investors that we do not quite welcome them bringing in their own talent.

I also recall that in his earlier speech during the debate on the Motion of Thanks to the President, he lamented that DBS was still without a Singaporean CEO, and even after hearing the clarification that the CEO of DBS is indeed Singaporean, even though not born in Singapore, he maintained his position. I cannot help, but come to the conclusion that Mr Leong and PSP do not believe that Singapore should be an open city connected to the world, having locals and foreigners complementing each other. And he wants Singapore to close up, for the top jobs to be given to Singaporeans only.

Mr Speaker, we have seen in many other mature democracies where anti-foreigner sentiments are being played out and politicised and we also know that many countries are grappling with the challenges of globalisation. So are we.

But we must try to strike a balance between globalisation and building our own identity in Singapore, welcoming foreign talent and building our own talent at the same time. And our future depends on it. If we start telling companies that they can invest but can only employ Singaporeans for the top jobs, we will end up chasing some of them away and thousands of good jobs for Singaporeans will be lost as well.

And going by Mr Leong's logic, Singaporeans who are working overseas then, would not be given top jobs outside Singapore.

In my maiden speech in Parliament, I spoke about strengthening the Singaporean Core and being very proud of Singapore as an open and multi-cultural society. We must do our best to equip our Singaporeans with the right skills and also the attributes to thrive in a vibrant and open economy. Singapore is a global city state. Global companies with a presence in Singapore require a diverse team of foreign and local talent. Mr Leong and PSP must know that.

Mr Speaker: Do you have a response, Mr Leong?

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, thank you, Speaker. I also thank the Minister of State for the comments. May I respond?

PSP is in total agreement to the fact that we are an open global city state. So, we are in favour of having foreign talents or foreigners to come in to compliment us. However, what we are pointing out, as in my maiden speech in September last year, we need a rebalancing, and we think the rebalancing is going on too slowly. Now, with more than 40% of the foreigners in our workforce, many of them have taken over the top positions.

The fact is that taking over the top positions in our company is not the problem. The problem is do we have enough policies to ensure that Singaporeans have a fair treatment? Today, I have pointed out again that for the longest time why the Government had allowed the wage disadvantage against the Singaporeans? With that, obviously, the employers would favour the foreigners over the Singaporeans a lot more.

And during my maiden speech, I brought up the issue of the CEO of DBS Bank not because it was meant to be a personal attack, but I am trying to emphasise, why is there no succession planning, again, being done over the course of the 20 years?

And recently, another of our local bank has employed another foreigner to be the CEO. So, what is MAS doing? In my maiden speech, I have said that during my time in the 1980s and the 1990s, localisation is almost a must in our financial sector. Today, it does not seem to be even a KPI for the MAS officials.

So, that is what PSP and I are concerned about – the rebalancing and we have to do the rebalancing as soon as possible and as fast as possible.

Mr Speaker: Ms Gan Siow Huang.

Ms Gan Siow Huang: Mr Speaker, PSP is entitled to take that position and a segment of Singaporeans will in fact support that position. And this is part and parcel of having diversity of views in the Chamber. But I thought that I should just register that the Government has a different view, which is that, this is a difficult balancing act. We are constantly working on it and that we will try our best to manage, do well to build a strong Singaporean Core in order to benefit Singaporeans for the long run.

Mr Speaker: Mr Ong Ye Kung.

The Minister for Transport (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Mr Leong and I had this exchange during the Motion of Thanks to the President's Address. I gave a full speech, recorded in the Hansard, the efforts that MAS has taken all these years and decades, opening up Singapore, establishing ourselves as a financial hub, creating many jobs, allowing many of our young now to go to University, receive a good education and enter the financial sector; how Universities have now become a very good hunting ground for financial sectors to hire very good talent. And they know that Singaporeans are able to do the job. And how Singaporeans – because we are now a regional and international hub – are now able to take up international roles overseas in other financial centres around the world, and then holding our own.

But competition is tougher. Of course, we always wish there is a manual that says we get all the jobs, but yet no competition. But I am sorry, there is no such manual. The manual is to open up, allow for more competition, but we build capabilities so that we can seize more opportunities.

All these, we have gone through during the Debate on the Motion on the President's Address. So, I am a little bit disturbed when I hear Mr Leong grandstanding, saying that all these building up, growing our own timber, localisation, building our own talent is not in MAS' KPI. I think that is grossly unfair and ignores everything that we have discussed earlier.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: I thank the Minister for the comments. I want to apologise. Maybe MAS does have the KPIs, but I think the KPIs are not showing enough results. Even the data that was quoted in Minister's clarification in September last year, I think I and a lot of Singaporeans still have doubts. Like for example, the senior executive positions in the retail banking sector in Singapore, why should there still be 30% to 40% of foreigners? After all, retail banking is about our own domestic market, right? Can it not be 80% to 90%? Are we satisfied with a 60%, 70% percentage, for example?

Secondly, I would also like to pose a question related to my speech today. Has the Government created a wage disadvantage by not having foreigners contribute to CPF in Singapore?

Mr Ong Ye Kung: Thank you. Why are 30% of retail bank managers still foreigners? Because we are a global financial centre. We are 70% and a much larger pie with a larger share. That is the essence of being an open and international financial centre. So, I think I have also come to the same conclusion as Minister of State Gan Siow Huang that actually the PSP's position is that you want Singapore to close up and protect the jobs. Which is fine. It is entitled to that view, but I think the Government and MAS have a different view.

But thank you for the apology. Apology accepted.

Mr Speaker: Asoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Speaker, let me have my last say.

Mr Speaker: No, we are moving on, thank you. I think enough was said.

2.18 pm

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, I had previously spoken in my speech to this House on the application of the Government Securities Act and Treasury Bills Act to raise the debt ceiling of the merits of debt and deficit financing, at least at this particular juncture in our economic cycle. And I am as happy as a clam, to hear that Minister Heng has outlined in his Budget, a fiscal strategy that reflects the number of elements that I had previously raised.

I just wish today, to develop a number of additional points in greater detail. First, I will offer some further thoughts about borrowing when interest rates are low, then I would discuss some of the benefits of not prematurely removing Government expenditure support at the time of macroeconomic weakness, while spelling out some of the key signals to keep an eye on in deciding on the eventual withdrawal. And finally, I will close with suggestions on broadening the usage of funds financed by long-term debt issuance.

Back in January, I shared about how, since governments are bound by very different time horizons and budget constraints, as compared with households and firms, as they have both the ability to finance expenditure through money creation, but also a fiduciary responsibility to evaluate the benefits of debt-financed fiscal policy, if macroeconomic conditions so warrant it.

Even if this point may be a subtle one, the takeaway is remarkably straightforward: if real interest rates are low, as they are today, incurring additional debt, especially when directed toward investment, could give rise to higher growth and potentially improve national welfare.

Now, if we accept this premise, how then should we execute such borrowing? MOF has yet to detail the forms by which bonds issued via the Significant Infrastructure Government Loan Act, or SINGA, would take. If I may, I now venture a few suggestions that may be helpful.

First, while the maturities of existing Singapore Government Securities run from two to 30 years, we should not rule out the possibility of further extending the maturity of debt issued under the auspices of SINGA, to 50 or 100 years. This would lock in the currently very favourable low rates for a much longer period as befitting truly long-term projects. If we were to do so, we would hardly be alone. Other advanced economies, including Austria, Belgium and Ireland have already done. Even several emerging economies such as Brazil, Chile, Israel and South Korea and perhaps preposterously Argentina, have gone ahead and issued century bonds as well. And corporations such as Coca Cola and Disney have likewise done the same. Closer to home, Temasek has also issued half centuries.

Second, it is important to benchmark the speed of debt issuance against prevailing growth conditions. There is evidence that when the growth rate of debt is too rapid, economic growth can suffer. The last thing we want for such voluntary debt insurance is for it to become a detriment to growth performance, a bane rather than the boom for our economy.

And finally, we should be clear about when we may no longer wish to roll over this debt but instead choose to extinguish it. On its face, this decision is a rudimentary, an accounting exercise. We will cease that issuance when the present value of expected returns from the investments toward which this debt is deployed, no longer exceeds the equivalent stream of interest repayments. All this is standard cost benefit analysis as any consultant worth their salt can easily attest to.

But it is possible to simplify this argument even further to a set of key warning indicators, all supportable by theory. One is that if the interest rate begins to routinely exceed the growth rate, we want to pay attention. A second warning sign would be if long-term inflation expectations remain benign, but interest rates nevertheless face upward pressure. A third amber signal is when the short-term interest rate begins rising inexorably even as the economy has clearly exited recessionary conditions.

Mr Speaker, may I suggest that we pay particular attention to our continued borrowing if any of these conditions present themselves?

Minister Heng has also explained that SINGA Bonds would be directed toward investment in physical infrastructure. To be clear, I am thoroughly supportive of this. Indeed, in my January speech, I explicitly indicated that investment in domestically-oriented infrastructure projects – such as sustaining MRT line expansion – represented examples of Government investment expenditure that would likely generate significant bang-for-the-buck. The other suggested expenditure area, tidal walls, likewise represents a domestically-oriented infrastructure project that promises to yield significant, in this case existential benefits. I, therefore, applaud the Government's decision to take this bold step of prudent, debt-financed investment.

I will further concede that this approach is entirely consistent with this Government's general principle toward capital raising – that long-term sources of finance be directed toward long-term projects.

My remaining reservation here is directed toward our interpretation of "long-term infrastructure". Undeniably, the examples cited above are excellent examples of hard capital, which extend the promise of raising productivity and growth. But, why would we limit our investments to only bridges and train lines and airports and seawalls, and not consider the equally important long-term investments we could direct toward soft capital, namely the capabilities of our people? In our effort to boost productivity and growth, investments in human capital are low hanging fruit. Not only that, they are also consistent with our stated goal of re-invigorating our post-pandemic economy, and rebooting it into a knowledge-based, information-centric 21st century powerhouse.

Let me elaborate. One important area where we can afford to spend more is in terms of research and development expenditure (R&D). We currently only devote a little less than 2% of our income toward R&D efforts, behind leading innovation nations such as Israel, Japan and South Korea. I will develop this proposal in greater detail in my Committee of Supply (COS) cut directed at MTI, although I will just declare here that I work for a research-intensive educational institution.

Another area where our human capital will benefit enormously with wise spending is in our Primary and Secondary schools. Our classrooms, at 33 students across most subjects, are a full 10 children in excess of the average class size of our industrial economy peers. I will likewise elaborate on how we can channel more resources toward reducing class sizes in my COS cut for MOE.

And finally, we should not forget the large mass of workers who will have to be reskilled and redeployed as we continue to transform our economic structure. The existing Professional Conversion Programme and SkillsFuture programmes can be better weaved into an end-to-end jobs safety net that not only provides support following retrenchment, but proactively channels displaced workers into new jobs. I will discuss this proposal in greater detail in my COS cut for MOM.

To that end, I propose that the amount to be authorised for total borrowing under SINGA, either be increased by $60 billion or to be carved out of the proposed $90 billion. These are to reflect provisions for potential increases in R&D, educational expenditures for smaller classes and an initial redundancy insurance risk pool. Importantly, even if we take the $60 and $90 billion together, this would represent a little less than a third of our GDP, an eminently sustainable debt burden, especially at low rates and when earmarked for investments with high long-term payoffs.

All that said, I believe it is incumbent on us to also consider the deployment of at least some of these funds toward cyclical needs. This is because of the material risks surrounding premature fiscal retrenchment. This uncertainty has, indeed, been recognised by others in this House, including Minister Heng himself. While it is generally impossible to define a precise set of conditions whereby we can be certain that the economy has returned to its long-run potential, it is also fair to recognise that we are likely to remain below our previous trend over the course of 2021.

We must bear in mind that, at the moment, the economy is very much like Swiss cheese. By which, I mean that, while it may look solid, it is, in reality, still riddled with holes. Our economy contracted by 5.4% in 2020. If we grow to attain the midpoint of the 2021 forecast by MTI of 5%, we will remain two-thirds of a percent below our pre-pandemic level of output. And even if we exceed expectations and grow by the upper bound of MTI's forecast, we will still remain more than 2% below the level that would have prevailed, had we grown at the 2019 growth rate through till 2021. More sophisticated methods suggest similar conclusions.

It is also useful to remind ourselves of the relatively recent experience of a number of countries in Europe, which made the fateful decision in 2010 to embark on austerity programmes, as a means of shoring up their weakened fiscal positions, following the region's sovereign debt crisis. The end result of that episode was that many of those economies went into a double-dip recession, prolonging the economic pain just as households and firms were in the process of pulling themselves out of a massive hole.

The bottom line, Mr Speaker, is that we should exercise an abundance of caution in any decision to taper the financial assistance that we have been offering to our families and companies. To be clear, there are those who will argue the opposite, that if we take too long, we run the risk of over-stimulation, stoking the flames of inflation. But I, for one, would err on the side of over-extending, rather than undershooting, short-term support for our beleaguered economy.

But, with all due respect, this is not about calibrating a response that neatly threads the needle between two possibilities. This is about how an error or premature austerity could translate into real economic pain for thousands of worker and businesses.

Minister Heng had suggested that our short-term spending plans will include an extension of GSS support Tier-1 corporations for another six months and certain Tier-2 corporations for another three. However, if we truly buy into the merits of controlled, short-term deficit financing, we should not allow traditional fiscal prudence metrics to preclude even greater support for our businesses, especially small and medium enterprises, that continue to struggle, and companies that will experience a more protracted recovery path, such as our national airline, even in the short run.

Importantly, our key considerations should not be whether any given firm falls into Tier-1 or Tier-2 or elsewhere. Rather, the metric for our evaluation should be whether the corporation would remain a going concern in the absence of the global pandemic conditions. Accounting and finance firms routinely gauge whether firms face temporary liquidity or more fundamental solvency issues. Our Government support programmes should do the same.

Thankfully, our reserves buffer also means that we are comparatively less constrained in our use of the debt instrument as part of our overall fiscal strategy. This means that we can always cease our deficit financing exercise once conditions for doing so – a number of which I had earlier suggested – are no longer optimal. But in the meantime, let us continue to support our struggling workers and businesses as much as we can.

Notwithstanding these additional suggestions and those that I plan to raise in the Committee of Supply, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu Mahzam.

2.32 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam): Mr Speaker, the true measure of a good Budget is how it impacts people. I would, therefore, like to start by sharing the story of people, in particular, three women.

The first person I want to talk about is Mdm Joey Lee. Joey is one of the directors and owners of Bread Garden, a family-run bakery business which has an outlet at my constituency, Bukit Batok East. Like many other businesses, Joey’s business took a hit as a result of COVID-19 and the circuit breaker. Events which were planned had to be cancelled. She had several Malaysian employees who could not come back to Singapore. Sales and revenue dropped and Joey and her team had to quickly pivot and learn ways to enhance their online business. All these happened amidst their plans to open another outlet. The Jobs Support Scheme and the Rental Relief Framework were thus very crucial in helping Joey sustain her business. Joey employs many Singaporean workers. Because of the support she received, she was able to continue running her business and open up a new outlet as planned. She managed to retain all her workers and has not had to retrench anyone yet. The pandemic is not over and the challenges with regard to manpower and sustaining the business are still present. Joey is, therefore, keenly interested in the extension of support to small and medium sized businesses like hers, as well as the plans on economic recovery.

The second story is that of Mdm Faraliza Zainal, a founder of MIJ Special Education Hub. Fara has a son with special needs and she left her high-flying job at Dow Jones to set up the education centre with the hope of providing support to those in situations similar to hers. She is deeply committed to ensure that early and meaningful intervention is given to children with needs. She would like to see society become more inclusive and embracing of people with different abilities. She, therefore, welcomes the announcement made by Deputy Prime Minister Heng on the Inclusive Support Programme that will integrate the provision of early intervention and early childhood services to help children with special needs. She also looks forward to the new Singapore Together Alliance for Action to support care-givers of persons with disabilities and hopes that, through this, more enhanced support can be considered for families with children with special needs.

The third individual I want to tell you about is Mdm Rajoo Meenachiammal, one of my volunteers. Meena is a dedicated volunteer who enjoys serving the community. She lives with her 73-year-old mother and is the primary care-giver. She works in the security industry and does the night shift so that she can spend time in the day to take care for her mother and bring her for her medical appointments. Meena is grateful for the financial support she will be receiving like the S&CC and U-save rebates, and the CDC Food Vouchers as these help her alleviate her monthly expenses.

Joey, Faraliza and Meena are strong and resilient women who are passionate about what they do and care for the people around them. There are many women out there like them and I want to take the opportunity in this debate to share and talk about the Budget from a woman’s perspective.

COVID-19 cast a gloomy shadow over many women who struggle to overcome their challenging situations, but it also provided opportunities for them to show strength and become everyday heroes. It is imperative for the Budget to help navigate the people through these difficult times. Our women, like their male counterparts, are very much involved and vested in our economic recovery and social development. While we may not typically see the Budget presented in a gender-centric fashion, the reality is that, there are many aspects of this year’s Budget measures that benefit women. In fact, all the Budgets announced in the past years have had measures that impact women. This year’s Budget is building on past efforts to transform the economy and support Singaporeans through various changes. In this regard, I would like to share my thoughts on the top three things about this Budget that matter to women.

Firstly, many of the Budget measures this year impact sectors where there is a high representation of women. There are many women working in hard-hit sectors, like tourism and hospitality. In many countries, proportionately more women have dropped out of the workforce. However, in Singapore, the workforce participation of women was not just maintained but, in fact, showed modest growth even in 2020. At the height of the pandemic, the employment rate for females remained at about 73.2%. The extension of the Jobs Support Scheme and Jobs Growth Incentive, therefore, have had a significant impact on keeping many women employed. If these women were forced out of the workforce, like what we see happening in other countries, there would have been severe repercussions to their income, careers and even their retirement.

Many of our healthcare workers are also women. They have made sacrifices working in high-risk environments during the COVID-19 pandemic while balancing their other roles as mothers, wives and daughters. They have been working hard even before the pandemic, but showed true commitment in our battle against the virus. To quote Deputy Prime Minister Heng, our healthcare workers have, over the years, been working hard to provide us with the highest quality of care. The announcement that the Government will enhance the salaries of our nurses and other healthcare workers, such as support care staff, is, therefore, welcomed.

At this juncture, I feel that we should also recognise women who have been at the leading edge of infectious diseases and public health, guiding our efforts in fighting COVID-19, such as Assoc Prof Lim Poh Lian, Director, High Level Isolation Unit, National Centre for Infectious Diseases and also Head, Travellers’ Health and Vaccination Clinic, TTSH. Assoc Prof Lim is also a member of the Expert Committee on COVID-19 Vaccination. We also have Prof Leo Yee-Sin who is the Executive Director of the National Centre for Infectious Diseases. She had led Singapore through multiple outbreaks, including SARS in 2003, pandemic influenza in 2009 and Zika in 2016. In 2020, she was the fourth Singaporean to be recognised by the BBC in their annual 100 Women list. I should also mention Assoc Prof Ong Biauw Chi, Chairperson of the SKGH Chief Medical Board, who worked tirelessly on the frontlines, managing the dormitories outbreak. We, indeed, have a lot to be proud of, having our women at the forefront of this battle against the pandemic.

Secondly, the Budget addresses some of the women’s immediate concerns and their concerns about their families. The Household Support Package and the COVID-19 Recovery Grant, for example, matter to women and their families. Women are often contributing to the family finances or managing their families’ financial commitments. In some families, the economic situation has led to some loss of income. Financial support is necessary to help families tide over this challenging period.

Another major area of concern is care-giving. Both men and women can be care-givers, and the Government’s support for care-givers is not specific to any gender. Nevertheless, it is clear that, in many circumstances, women tend to take a disproportionate load of the care-giving role. MOH launched the Caregiver Support Action Plan (CSAP) in 2019 which focused on providing better support to care-givers of seniors and their families. The CSAP included enhancements to: (a) care navigation, (b) financial support, (c) respite care, (d) workplace support, and (e) care-giver empowerment and training. Various initiatives were rolled out under the CSAP, such as respite care pilots and the Home Caregiving Grant in 2019, to alleviate the community cost of care-giving. MOH also worked with community partners to set up care-giver community outreach teams. These teams support care-givers in self-care through health and wellness activities and also provide counselling services where needed. The Government remains committed to supporting care-givers and more plans will be shared at MOH's COS Debate.

There are many other aspects of this Budget that would have a great impact on women. Women care about the environment, too, and certainly look forward to further details of the Singapore Green Plan. Women care about their jobs and the economy and would be keen to see the roll-out of the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package and the Jobs Growth Incentive.

Thirdly, the Budget builds on earlier Government policies and the work is not done. We have seen how policies and schemes have evolved over the years. In 2016, the Silver Support Scheme was introduced. About 65% of the recipients are women who had low earnings throughout their lives and now have less in retirement. In 2019, we saw the Government announcing the Bicentennial Bonus CPF Top-Up. Six in 10 of the citizens who benefited from the top-up are women in their 50s and 60s. From 2021 to 2025, the Government will also provide a dollar-for-dollar matching grant of up to $600 annually under the Matched Retirement Savings Scheme (MRSS) to older members with lower CPF balances and cash top-ups to their Retirement Account. One-third of those eligible for MRSS are inactive CPF contributors, including full-time care-givers, with about 2.5 times as many women as men among them. There has been increasing awareness about women who have spent a large part of their lives not in formal employment but toiling to care for their families. Over time, there has also been conversations around the uneven distribution of the care-giving load and equal opportunities for women.

Indeed, there are gaps that we need to work on. Gender bias and stereotypes and the disparity between men and women continue to exist. That is one of the reasons why the Conversations on Women’s Development was started – to encourage a whole-of-society discussion on this to nudge behaviours and call for changes that benefit not just women, but the whole community. The efforts are still on-going and there is still much to be done to meaningfully change mindsets and systems so that our boys and girls in the future have equal opportunities to pursue their full potential.

My colleagues, in their speeches, will address some of the issues that continue to be of concern to women in Singapore and share their views on how we can build on our existing efforts to support and empower women. Ms Yeo Wan Ling spoke yesterday about challenges faced by female cabbies and also raised the possibility of introducing respite care to alleviate the burden on women workers. Ms Tin Pei Ling spoke earlier about digital empowerment of women. Ms Jessica Tan and Ms Nadia Samdin will be talking about jobs, encouraging more women into certain sectors in the workforce and providing support for women to pursue their aspirations. Miss Cheryl Chan, Ms Joan Pereira, Ms Carrie Tan, Ms Hany Soh and Ms Ng Ling Ling will be covering various aspects of the women’s care-giving roles. Miss Cheng Li Hui will speak on assisted conception. Minister of State, Ms Sun Xueling, will address how Budget 2021 builds on continuing efforts in supporting women in care-giving, supporting vulnerable women, and supporting women in their career aspirations. Their insights will show the broadness and depth of all the issues that matter to our women; reflecting how a Budget debate will always take into account the concerns of all women as our interests and development are intertwined with the development of this nation. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] COVID-19 has brought many challenges to our community. It is important for this year’s Budget to ensure that there is steady support for the public and robust plans to improve our economy. Women, just like the men, are impacted by COVID-19 and are very concerned about economic recovery and social issues that emerge in our community. We seldom discuss Budgets through the lens of women, but if we think about it, there are many aspects of this Budget that benefits women. In Singapore, year after year, we see a lot of opportunities and support being given to women. These enable our women to progress at a better level than women in other countries.

However, we need to continue to increase support to help develop the potential of women. Women in Singapore have made many sacrifices and contributions to their families, society and nation. In some of my interactions with women comprising professionals, business owners, home-based business women and housewives, I have been very impressed with their resilience. Although the COVID-19 pandemic has affected their lives, they remain positive. They also continue to play an important role in strengthening family institutions, becoming valuable assets in their organisations, improving the country's economy and becoming a role model for other countries to celebrate the achievements, progress and potential of women.

Recently, Berita Harian highlighted the story of Ms Shirin Hamid, an outstanding corporate woman, holding the post of Director General and Chief Information Officer of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), based in Manila, the Philippines. She led the IT department of the bank that has 45 global offices. Prior to that, she played a role as Chief Technology Officer at the United Nations Development Programme or UNDP in New York for 10 years. This is the highest non-political appointment at the UN. Her achievements in the field of technology, which currently does not have many women from the minority groups, is something to be proud of.

Many of us may also know Ms Fatimah Mohsin, designer and founder of Fatimah Mohsin The Wedding Gallery. Due to the spread of the COVID-19 virus, many functions and events had to be cancelled or postponed. This has affected her business, but she has not given up hope. Ms. Fatimah has modified her company's strategy and has opened a new restaurant. In fact, despite her busy schedule, she also managed to sew and distribute 600 face masks to frontline officers as a token of appreciation for their sacrifices. Ms Fatimah also rolled up her sleeves to help small businesses during the physical Ramadan Bazaar last year. She invited them to place their products in her shop. Her never-say-die attitude, willingness to innovate and concern about the plight of other business owners are traits that we should emulate and admire.

Indeed, women have much potential to help Singapore emerge stronger from this pandemic. I urge the whole community to have an open mind and provide unfettered opportunities for women. Do not underestimate the roles, responsibilities and contributions of women. As the saying goes, “the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world”.

(In English): Mr Speaker, the pandemic is far from over. Its impact will be felt for years to come and there is a lot more to be done. We also need to remain committed to our long-term priorities and amongst other things, continue to look at areas where we can address gender bias and disparity between men and women.

We are not done building this nation and will have to carry on our efforts to build a fair and just society for all. And I have no doubt, the women in Singapore will stand tall alongside the men, doing their part for this country. It is apt that we are also Celebrating SG Women this year. There is indeed much to celebrate as we are celebrating the great leaders, the pillars of strength within the families, the everyday heroes, who inspire us to emerge stronger together. Mr Speaker, I stand in support of this Budget. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Ms Ng Ling Ling.

2.49 pm

Ms Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, first, let me declare my role as a consultant in healthcare transformation.

Sir, the COVID-19 pandemic is a crisis of a generation unparalleled to any that Singaporeans have faced in recent history. Vaccines are giving us hope to get through the challenges soon, and as we brace ourselves through probably another year of an adjusted way of life, we must continue to look out for each other.

I spoke with residents in my constituency in Jalan Kayu after Deputy Prime Minister Heng had announced Budget 2021. Many felt that it is a balanced Budget that builds on the efforts to support Singaporeans and businesses to stay afloat, to ride the reviving of the economy and, more importantly, to ensure that the vulnerable amongst us are also well taken care of.

I would like to call attention to three more vulnerable segments of our population who will need continued efforts to safeguard and improve their welfare under this Budget. The three groups are: one, persons with disabilities; two, women who are care-givers; and three, seniors living alone or with their spouse only.

First, support for persons with disabilities or PWDs for short. In Singapore, children with disability can attend special education up to 18 years old and in some vocational track, up to 21 years old. Armed with knowledge and skills, young adults with disabilities and abilities can have almost five decades of work capable years ahead of them.

Deputy Prime Minister Heng assured in his Budget speech that employment and training for PWDs will be supported by various initiatives such as those under SG Enable's Open Door programme and the Enabling Employment Credit. The Minister for Social and Family Development, Mr Masago Zulkifli also recently announced that about 1,200 job and training opportunities will be created for PWDs by the end of this year.

When we look at the data from MOM, as of June 2018, 28.6% of resident PWDs aged 15 to 64 are employed, compared with countries like New Zealand where the employment rate for disabled was 38.7% in 2020. We know that we can and must do more to push for a higher level of inclusion for PWDs in the workforce in Singapore. I believe that we should not merely offer employment to PWDs in quantity, but also in quality that will allow them to optimise their full potential.

Recently, a young lady, resident of mine, shared with me that her job scope was limited because of her physical disability. Although she has a desire to interact directly with clients, her employer has assumed that a role in a backroom will be more suitable for her. While she is thankful for the job, she was discouraged that the assumption of her limited ability will limit her career progression. This example goes to show that as we have more employers willing to offer jobs to PWDs, we need to minimise stereotyping jobs roles and have in mind that they have abilities that can be stretched. I urge the Government to work with the employers, Social Service Agencies and PWDs themselves to factor in the aspiration of the PWDs even as the number of jobs will be bolstered.

Complementing existing efforts under the Open Door programme, I recommend for the Government to consider the following suggestions.

One, add a develop-and-grow type of programme that will help employers identify, design and develop career growth path for PWDs within their organisations. This will enable employers to build the confidence of the PWDs that their potential will be valued.

Two, develop a holistic outcome-based measurement framework for the employment of PWDs, covering end-to-end, from skills training, job placement to career development and growth. Such a framework could integrate the tracking of training outcomes, employment placements, remuneration as well as progression data over multi years to provide a basis for the Government to continually adjust policy and programmes with employers.

And three, incentivise and reward more employers to attain the Enabling Mark by SG Enable so that more workplaces can implement best practises for inclusive employment.

Next, the group that I would like to bring attention to are the care-givers, especially the women. The report on labour force in Singapore showed that in 2019, about 133,500 of resident population indicated care-giving responsibility as the main reason for them to have to leave the workforce. And of this, almost 90% were women. Majority of these women were aged 40 to 59 years old and almost seven in 10 were out of the workforce for more than five years.

Some of the most common problems that women care-givers experience is a setback in their own health and career.

In a report entitled "Explaining the gender gap in care-giving burden of partner care-givers" in the Journal of Gerontology published in February 2019, it shows that women care-givers also experienced greater burnout on healthcare due to multiple stressors such as relational, financial problems and problems integrating care-giving with social and work activities. Women care-givers also struggle with uncertainty over their future and financial adequacy in their older age as a result of their absence from the workforce. The need for women care-givers' re-integration, re-employment and retirement adequacy and their own health cannot be understated.

I am glad to hear from Deputy Prime Minister Heng in the Budget speech that the National Council of Social Service and SG Enable will form an alliance for action on support for care-givers for PWDs. I would like to recommend for this alliance to expand to women care-givers, to emphasise more on women care-givers, given that they are likely to be the majority and also to cover those caring for seniors with acquired disabilities or health issues.

Holistic actions to support care-givers must address the social, health and employment needs to provide comprehensive and robust support. On this note, I would like to recommend expanding the partnership to include Agency of Integrated Care (AIC) and Workforce Development Agency (WDA) in the alliance for action. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Budget, I hope that the Government can pay more attention to women care-givers. The report on labour force in Singapore showed that, in 2019, about 133,500 people indicated care-giving responsibilities for children, the elderly and disabled as the main reason for leaving the workforce. Among them, 90% were women. Majority of these women care-givers were aged between 40 and 59 years and have left the workforce longer than five years.

Some of the most common problems that women care-givers experience is setback in their own health and career. The need for women care-givers’ re-integration, re-employment and retirement and their own health cannot be overstated.

I am glad to hear from Deputy Prime Minister Heng in the Budget Speech that the National Council of Social Service and SG Enable will form an Alliances for Action on support for care-givers of persons with disabilities. I hope the Alliance will emphasise more on women care-givers, who make up the majority, and also cover those caring for seniors with disabilities. I recommend that Agency of Integrated Care and Workforce Development Agency be included in the Alliance so that we can look after women care-givers’ health and employment needs holistically.

(In English): The third group I would like to speak about are the seniors who are living alone or only with their spouse. While I am glad to hear that about $200 million increase in budget allocation will be given for the Senior Worker Early Adopter Grant and Part-time Re-employment Grant from Deputy Prime Minister Heng, care for seniors must also extend to supporting them to age in place.

According to the Department of Statistics (DOS), the number of households headed by persons aged 65 years and above living either as a couple without children or living alone has increased from about 100,000 in 2015 to 167,000 in 2019. These numbers show that we need to continue to improve the living environment of our seniors to help them age in place as far as possible, especially in mature estates where more seniors reside.

The BTO launch of the first Community Care Apartment Harmony Village @ Bukit Batok is an innovative and meaningful pilot for our seniors. What stands out from this pilot is the unique design features, innovative use of technology and complementary care services package. This BTO project, which was over-subscribed by 4.2 times shows that there is a demand for such kind of apartments.

However with the number of households with seniors living alone and senior couples living without children increasing so rapidly, it might not be possible for the supply of such Community Care Apartments to catch up fast enough with the demand. I hope that MND can consider integrating some of the success factors of the Community Care Apartments into the Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) programme where more seniors can apply too. For example, in addition to incorporating technology for elderly monitoring and alert system, perhaps telecare, providing remote health monitoring devices supported by care providers could also be considered as part of EASE.

As of 2019, the EASE programme has benefited about 200,000 households. MND shared in a 2018 Parliamentary Question response that HDB regularly reviews EASE by engaging healthcare sector stakeholders to develop and review the list of improvements that can be added to the programme. I hope that MND can consider technology enhancements in the EASE programme, including telecare packages that can be delivered through technology by care providers to reap similar benefits like the Community Care apartments to more seniors.

Mr Speaker, please allow me to conclude my speech with a word of encouragement for the year ahead. I rise today to speak about our efforts to support the vulnerable among us because as we recover as a nation, we must bring along everyone and leave no one behind. As our country moves towards the path of recovery, we must not forget those among us who are vulnerable and who can benefit from innovative ideas to continue improving their lives. Supporting one another should continue to be part of our Singapore spirit. On that note, I support the Emerging Stronger Together Budget 2021.

3.01 pm

Dr Shahira Abdullah (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I am humbled to be given this opportunity to participate in this debate. I would also like to thank the Minister for Finance for a Budget in which it is evident that the country tries to take care of the community as a whole for the present while at the same time is cognisant of the challenges we may face in the future.

A Budget, to me, is like a blueprint for the future. With the Budget, people are able to see the priorities that a Government has for the country – its vision, its plan and its ideas. When I was part of the Singapore Youth Action Plan as a panel member, that was what we were trying to find out. What do youths envision for Singapore in 2025. Or more simply, what is the Singapore that they are striving for?

I am happy that the five key values that youths felt were important for Singapore – inclusiveness, fairness, care, sustainability and progress – came out strongly in the Budget.

But what would our Singapore youths think of Budget 2021? Does it really address their concerns? What do they think is really important for the future, especially with a pandemic happening in the background?

According to the National Youth Council, youths are those aged between 15 and 35 years old. I have worked with youths for a long time, with Mendaki Club and National Youth Council. Even in my daily work as an orthodontist, I see mostly youths as patients. But with such a wide age range, it is evident that different issues may resonate with different age groups. An old youth, aged 33 like me, may have different priorities compared to someone who is 23.

But a common thread that runs between all youths is that they care. They care about what is happening to the people around them, the spaces around them. They care about what is happening in Singapore and what is happening outside of Singapore. And they can be fiercely protective if they think an injustice has been done in some way. Some may be a little more indifferent than others, but in such a highly plugged world like today, it is hard for the youths not to have an opinion on a variety of issues.

From my interactions, the issues they care deeply about, during this COVID-19 pandemic are jobs and the economy, the support of vulnerable groups in the community, environmental sustainability and mental wellness.

Firstly, due to the pandemic, many youths are concerned about their career. They wonder if they are able to remain nimble and adapt to the ever-changing economy. Due to increasing digitalisation, they are worried about competition for jobs from within and beyond Singapore. Job security becomes less guaranteed. For low-income youths, the problem is infinitely worse. A lot of these youths have lost their jobs and employment opportunities. Many are supporting their families.

Adam, a community worker and lead for "Youth Want Work" for Beyond Social Services, was able to share more. "Youth Want Work" is a youth-led, youth employment initiative that aims to provide workshops and the necessary skills to prepare them for the workforce. In his reflection, he shared about the uphill struggle low-income youths face in employment and the importance of understanding, inclusivity and sensitivity in the workplace.

And I quote: “People often think that if an individual tries hard enough, they will get the necessary opportunities, but they don’t understand the struggles these youths face at home. For example, there was a very smart youth who was offered a degree position, but she had to turn it down due to her care-giving responsibilities for her grandmother and younger brothers. We also met youths who decided to enter the workforce early because they don’t see the benefit of further education, especially since they always felt ostracised in school for their circumstances. Some of them even had Secondary school teachers telling them that they won’t make it, so you can’t really blame them for not feeling very motivated.”

Therefore, even though I think it is a wonderful step to extend the SGUnited Skills and the SGUnited Traineeships, it seems like, to help especially the low-income youths, underlying issues need to be addressed as well.

There are also many youths who are engaged in delivery and ride-hailing jobs. The introduction of the petrol duty hikes, though needed for the good of the environment, maybe a bit too abrupt for many to adjust to, especially if they are from low-income families. Though it may also serve as a disincentive for these youths to continue in the unskilled gig economy, would a gradual introduction be less disruptive and give them more time to adapt? I would urge the Government to closely monitor the effects of this.

Other than the low-income group, youths are also concerned about other vulnerable communities and want an inclusive society where no one gets left behind. To do so, we need to ensure that the national conversations we have are actually inclusive of all the different voices that make up Singapore. Singapore is a melting pot of races, cultures, religions and more. How do we ensure that all the voices are brought forward, from the people with special needs to the person with disabilities? There may be inherent systemic, structural barriers that make it difficult for them to contribute their voices, so we must make a conscious effort to recognise those barriers and break them down so that their voices are heard.

Therefore, I welcome the pilot Inclusive Support Programme to allow more children with developmental needs to be more meaningfully engaged alongside other children. When inclusivity is integrated into the psyches of the children from young, we will be able to understand each other better and celebrate our differences; not just tolerate each other.

I also truly feel that the Alliances for Action on support for care-givers of persons with disabilities is a step in the right direction and echoes what the youths have been seeking. I look forward to hearing more details about it in time to come.

The other issues facing the community and the wider world that youths are concerned about is sustainability and mental wellness. When it was made known that there would be a potential clearing of Dover Forest for potential BTOs, youths took to social media to create awareness. When Kranji woodlands was erroneously cleared, there was uproar on social media among youths about it. It shows that issues about the environment do strike a chord with them.

I do appreciate that the Government is playing an active role to engage with environmental youth groups in a bid to combat climate change. I am glad that there is a Green Plan for Singapore and I look forward to the upcoming debates. However, I feel as though more can be done to encourage careers in sustainability among the youths. This will be elaborated further in my Budget cut.

It has also caught my attention that there is no mention yet of any mental wellness initiatives in this current Budget. A CNA article in February 2021 states that calls to mental health helplines have increased since the start of the pandemic. According to the Samaritans of Singapore, the number of suicides rose 10% in 2020, with suicides among boys aged 10 to 19 at a record high. This is worrying, as according to mental health professionals, stresses relating to the social and economic impact of the pandemic may have an impact on mental wellness.

I welcome that the Government has set up a COVID-19 Mental Wellness Taskforce to tackle the pandemic’s impact on mental health. However, I would like to know if there are any updates or if a budget is allocated to take this further moving forward.

I also would like to speak about something that is close to my heart – the Malay/Muslim youths. The Malay population has a relatively higher youth base with 32% of its population between ages 15 and 34, as compared to national at 26%. According to the 2018 Future-ready Conversation Series report by Yayasan MENDAKI, our youths also reflect an altruistic notion of wanting to be of "service to society". They see themselves as members of the wider community and believe it is a privilege and responsibility on their part to contribute. And there are ready examples in the community.

One case in point, Mendaki Club, run by youths, is launching the Young Women in Leadership Dialogue Commemorative Book with support from the Singapore Muslim Women's Association. Titled “Unprecedented – To the Beat of Her Own Drum”, it features 20 young Malay/Muslim women who overcame tough odds and achieved success in various forms throughout their lives. This book launch also serves as a fundraising effort for Casa Raudha, to support its shelter for women and and children who have been victims of domestic violence.

At the same time reading those stories, I am overcome by a sense of awe by what these women have achieved for themselves while giving back to the community. Take Nurhajah Haron who overcame difficult family circumstances which saw her family being homeless and having to sleep in void decks. She nonetheless graduated from ITE as a valedictorian with a perfect GPA and as the top nursing graduate. She is now giving back to the community as a nurse. Or Azurah Khalid, a national silat representative and rugby player for the national team. She is the owner of Lokalfeed a podcast and online platform for content featuring inspiring women, and Wilder Café, an eatery that practises sustainable cooking.

Being a woman may bring about its own set of challenges but the stories of these inspirational women gives me great hope for the future.

As such, we need to tap on our promising Malay youths. I believe the Budget should try to further leverage on this, by providing more platforms to develop their leadership potential and volunteer with the community.

Mr Speaker, Sir, youths have a lot to say and contribute. More often than not, much of what they think and feel strongly about comes out on social media. For example, after the Budget announcement, we see youths trying to create awareness about it, while others take to their accounts to comment and give their take on it. Admittedly, though, some are not interested at all. However, it also seems like many would like to see the Government take note of their views and opinions, acknowledge that they have listened and show how their participation has helped to shape future policies.

Are the voices of youth too idealistic? Are their recommendations too impractical to consider due to their lack of life experiences? In my humble opinion, I beg to differ. I feel that that is the beauty of it. Because they have had fewer life experiences, they are unencumbered by them. More than a few times, in my role as a consultant for the Youth Action Challenge, a platform for youths to provide solutions that tackle community issues, I have been amazed by the ingenuity of the ideas proposed.

Moving forward, I feel we should engage them further on the Budget. Any ideas can be further developed by connecting them to experts and people on the ground. With a richer understanding of what has been done before, what has worked and what has not, these synergies can result in workable solutions for the greater good. As President Halimah said in her Opening Address of the 14th Parliament, “Singaporeans must come together, in partnership, to pursue the greater good, united by a belief in Singapore and a desire to turn our vision into reality.”

Lastly, I have a personal message to the youths who are listening. It all starts with you. Each one of you holds the key to your own individual story. And each individual story forms a unique thread in the tapestry of the Singapore Story. The intention you have in your heart, the values you embody and the choices that you make form who you are and what we become as a society. If you choose to be kind, compassionate, inclusive, fair and brave, then that is the Singapore you will build for the future. And honestly, that is the Singapore we can all look forward to.

Youths, the Budget is about the kind of future that you want. It is about the kind of country that you believe in. So, sit up, take note, understand it, use your voice. For it affects you and everyone around you.

Let me end off this speech with a few stanzas of a Malay song, that is a personal favourite of mine. "Ilham Pujangga", Inspiration of a Poet, is a song performed by Singaporeans Mr Ismail Haron and Cikgu Zaharah Salleh in 1972. The song talks about the value of the youth in the wider society, encouraging the youth to contribute to the country and the world. And at the same time, do so with underlying love for all human beings.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]

To all the young people,

Lend a helping hand

To your motherland

The new age is here

Do not delay any longer

Love humankind

As much as you love yourself

As how each individual beholds the community

And as how the community beholds each individual

(In English): Thank you. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.

3.15 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, the past year had been difficult. But fortunately, with the availability of the vaccines, we are beginning to see some light at the end of the tunnel. The signs of recovery are here and we will be, as Deputy Prime Minister Heng had said, "Emerging Stronger Together".

All of us contribute through our different roles in society. Today, I would like to speak for the care-givers amongst us, particularly the women who form the majority of care-givers in Singapore. How we can provide more support to our care-givers?

Care-givers are not homogeneous. Some take on the role to provide more customised care for their loved ones. Others accept the task due to particular circumstances. Their needs are very complex, which also depend on whom they need to care for – children, elderly, differently-abled, or a combination. Care may be multi-faceted and their time requirements may not be neatly parceled out.

As my resident who is a care-giver told me, "I am the housekeeper, cook, babysitter, nurse, accountant, concierge, courier and driver, and many many more." This work is onerous due to the wide range of responsibilities and the need to be constantly available, often on standby 24/7. Overwork and burnout are common amongst care-givers. Through the years, as we go through the feedback, the word "respite" has surfaced over and over again. Our care-givers simply need a break.

I am proud to note that as a community, we are constantly improving in how we support our care-givers so that they can have their breaks, or even find the time to pursue interests and careers.

Childcare. For care-givers looking after children, affordable, accessible and good quality childcare services are increasingly available. The Government will raise the proportion of Government-supported pre-school places to 80% in four years' time. Fee caps will be lowered too.

Elder and Respite Care. Similarly, a range of affordable and quality elder and respite care services will be made more accessible to lighten the financial and physical burden of caring for our elderly. For the elderly who are more frail and have less family support, there will be more places in residential care facilities, such as nursing homes, to provide them with the appropriate long-term care.

Care for the Disabled. I am heartened that the National Council of Social Service and SG Enable will form a Singapore Together Alliances for Action (AfA) to look into bolstering support for care-givers of persons with disabilities.

Support for care-givers of those with mental health conditions. For care-givers of those with mental health conditions, they need better access to information and guidance with care navigation. With our rapidly ageing population, we will also encounter more age-related mental health cases. I urge MOH to make more provisions to assist care-givers of this vulnerable group. With all these support services in place, what more can be done?

First, we need to raise public awareness about the availability of all these services. This can be done through public messaging through free-to-air TV channels and radio, social media platforms, and contact points such as clinics, hospitals, community centres, Residents' Committees and Neighbourhood Committees. I have come across care-givers who are very worried about costs. We must encourage them to start exploring these options and work through the financials with the relevant Government agencies.

Second, the Government needs to continue monitoring the quality of care services. SOPs must be adhered to. Regular inspections and enforcement are necessary to uphold standards. Such measures are already in place but vigilance is necessary to maintain confidence and trust in the system, so that care-givers can have peace of mind.

Third, we must provide career counselling, guidance and training for care-givers who would like to start or return to work, including part-time and flexi-work. In addition to self actualisation, work is important to one's sense of dignity and identity. Earned incomes contribute to household finances and retirement adequacies, and improve the quality of life for their families.

Last, I hope MOH will train and upgrade more mental healthcare professionals to support persons with mental wellbeing issues as well as to help maintain the care-givers' own mental health. Like physical health, there are ways and strategies to keep our emotional, psychological and mental states in good condition. We need to raise the level of general knowledge and expertise in this field among our people. Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Our country has many care facilities and services which can lighten the heavy responsibility of care-giving. We can raise public awareness of such services through the media, health institutions and grassroots organisations. The Government must ensure that the quality of services are good, so that care-givers can have peace of mind. We must also provide career counselling, guidance and training for care-givers who would like to return to work.

Lastly, I hope the Ministry of Health will train and upgrade more mental health professionals. They will support persons with mental health issues and also to help maintain care-givers' own mental health. We need to raise the level of general knowledge and expertise in this field among our people.

(In English): Sir, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Dr Tan Yia Swam.

3.22 pm

Dr Tan Yia Swam (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I start my speech in Mandarin?

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I have been wondering why I want to be a Nominated Member of Parliament. Some friends criticised that Parliament already has so many doctors and does not need another. Some even commented at an online forum, “why choose a neh-neh* doctor?” [*term used is a Singlish vernacular which may be deemed disrespectful] I was feeling angry and amused at the same time. I told my children about this and they kept laughing.

My mother is a housewife and my father a retired policeman. I went to Woodsville Primary School and was fortunate to attend Raffles Girls' School later. I have some very special memories. In the first few weeks of Secondary school, the English teacher stayed behind after work to teach me the correct English pronunciation so that I would not sound like I was lagging behind the other students. Another teacher noticed that I did not take part in some elective activities because of the additional fees and told my father how to apply for a bursary. These stories illustrate the importance of equal access to education, resources and opportunities.

I am now a private breast surgeon and married with three children. I am the first female President of the Singapore Medical Association. All these are not achieved through my personal efforts alone; instead I am able to do it with the support from my family, friends, colleagues and mentors.

I remember when I was a teenager, there was a Xinyao song called "xiao ren wu de xin sheng” (Voice of the Little People). One sentence touched me particularly – “Perhaps I cannot achieve a great accomplishment by myself, but I contribute as much as I can, as best as I can”. This is what I hope to do now, to express my views from my multiple roles and represent the people around me.

Education is a strong foundation for personal growth. I am not just talking about formal education, but also education from parents, families and daily living experiences. My children look up to me and emulate my words and behaviours. For example, wearing a mask and returning dishes after a meal at hawker centres are good examples. There are bad examples too, such as using vulgar language. Unfortunately, people learn bad examples very quickly.

Now in English.

(In English): Education plays a huge role in healthcare as well. We teach medical students and trainee specialists. All doctors undergo compulsory Continuing Medical Education to keep up with the rapid advances in healthcare. In this era of shared decision making, the role of a doctor is as much a teacher as healer. In each consultation, I educate my patients on their conditions, so that they can make informed decisions. Sometimes, it is a challenge when they are misinformed by what they read from the Internet.

As Dr Google becomes ever more popular, we need to help people be more discerning. We need to learn how to fact find, how to distinguish myth from facts, and how to identify reliable websites. Good health education is critical in empowering people to take charge of their own health. For those of us who are middle aged now, we have to do our part in keeping healthy. This includes health promotion efforts like eating right, exercising, to help in disease prevention, and screening for early detection of disease.

I have immediate family members who need care for serious medical conditions. One is a citizen and the other, a foreigner. I saw for myself the differences in healthcare subsidies, and I appreciate that every Singaporean has access to affordable and quality healthcare. I am glad to see an increased Budget for healthcare in 2021, to cater for patient subsidies in primary care, namely the three new polyclinics and another restructured hospital, Woodlands Health Campus.

I may be stating the obvious, but healthcare subsidies are finite, and those of us who can afford to pay for private healthcare should consider doing so. Interestingly, I have friends who are not quite sure how to navigate the healthcare system here and think that the process starts with going through polyclinics, or that they need to go to the Accident and Emergency department. I will take a minute to summarise for everyone's benefit.

Unless you actually needed to see a doctor, you might not quite realise how the whole system works. Briefly, the restructured hospitals are team based, and patients get referred through a polyclinic, and will be seen by various doctors, nurses and allied health during the course of their treatment. A patient may choose a particular doctor in a restructured hospital, but he/she will need to pay private rates. However, due to the sheer volume of patients, the waiting times for doctors, scans and operations will be subject to variable waiting times.

In a private hospital, most private doctors run their own practices and use the hospital facilities as needed. Waiting times are usually much shorter and the patient would typically have their chosen doctor attending to them at all times. There are pros and cons to each system. I have worked in both, and also been a patient under both systems. If you have the means and can afford a private insurance plan, it is good to have more options. Otherwise, I am confident that our restructured healthcare system is robust and can provide adequate care for all citizens.

Those of us with the financial ability to have bought an Integrated Shield Plan will need to keep up to date with the changes to the terms and conditions. Recently, in a Forum letter to The Straits Times, dated 19 February 2021, the writer asked many pertinent questions. There have been on-going discussions between various stakeholders on some of these issues. I list three main ones for thought, and will further speak on these during the Committee of Supply debates.

One, is it fair for insurers to make unilateral changes to existing policies that affect policy holders? Two, is it restrictive to have panels, keeping in mind that some panels have only one or no doctors in an area of speciality? Three, how do the insurers choose their doctors to sit on their panels – is it truly based on quality and merit, or are there financial arrangements which are not disclosed?

For those of us who are parents, we also have the duty to teach our young on keeping healthy – both physically and mentally. However, having both parents working full-time means that the contact time with our children is often limited, and this is a challenge faced by many young families. I always thank my kids' teachers for being their other parents, in imparting values and lifelong habits for learning. Thanks to all teachers who have worked very hard in the past year. To switch to online learning during the circuit breaker and then to keep up a curriculum in the classroom, as well as being ready to resume virtual teaching should the need arise. I also thank their efforts in keeping our children safe by reminding and enforcing the importance of masks, face shields and hand hygiene.

I am in the generation who grew up before the Internet and came of age when the Internet became widely accessible. I read with horror about cyberbullying and I am dismayed at how vicious online and often anonymous comments can be. Minor incidents sometimes get blown out of proportion by thoughtless, insensitive comments.

Cyberbullying, internet trolling is an ugly phenomenon in our modern world, for which many of us have no protection against. My eldest child is starting to explore the world wide web. As parents, we have done our part to restrict settings, and so on, but we cannot protect him forever. We are learning so that we can equip him with knowledge on how to protect himself and not get hurt too badly.

A previous written response stated that reported cyberbullying incidents remain low over the past three years. I note that it is "reported incidents" and wonder how many unreported ones could there be? While the Protection from Harrassment Act and the Protection From Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) exist, the average citizen may just fume, rage and cry helplessly, when reading horrible comments by commenters who are anonymous, and we have no resources to track down the offenders.

While it is best to ignore and not read these comments, we do have a younger generation of people who live and interact virtually and we have to think ahead on how to teach them to be responsible users and not weaponise digital shaming while being empowered to protect oneself.

I acknowledge and agree with part of what another Member of Parliament said previously, "that civic education is the correct way for a society to recognise falsehoods". Let us teach resilience and learn to accept those who are different. Humans like to categorise and place labels. We classify people by race, religion, nationality, physical appearance, intellectual ability, mental illness, gender identity, sexual orientation. We tend to identify with those whom we feel are "same", and feel that those who are different are just "not one of us".

I do not have a global solution – all I can do is to teach my kids to be kind, to think before they speak, and not to fear those who are different. Charity starts at home. Every parent wants to teach their child the right values. How can we, as a Government, best support this? I am hopeful that Singaporeans and those staying here will continue to care for each other in this COVID-19 recovery period.

Last year, in the initial weeks of COVID-19, the healthcare community was very heartened by the generous support from many groups. Our frontline healthcare workers, particularly those in the restructured hospitals received gifts and care packages, such as coffee, chicken rice, chocolates, vouchers and thank you cards.

I support the Government's Arts and Cultural Resilience Package: doctors heal the body, religious leaders heal the soul; the arts heal our spirit. The Arts is without boundary and can communicate to all people. The Singapore Medical Association started an Instagram hashtag #sgartforhcw which allowed people to share their support for healthcare workers through artwork.

Many heartwarming reports surfaced on social media of neighbours helping each other and even random strangers showing kindness. I hope that we will all continue this spirit of caring and I urge the influencers on social media to use their power to keep this flame going strong. Let us all be decent, be kind, and do the right thing.

While I recognise the need for the Budget to focus on jobs and re-building the economy, I hope that we do not neglect to nurture the softer aspects of our society, to unify and build social cohesion – only then, can Singapore "Emerge Stronger Together". [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.

3.33 pm

Ms Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): I would like to request a few moments of silence just to let the House have a mental reprieve from the many messages that have been shared so far, before I start my speech.

Mr Speaker: I will deduct the minutes from the break later.

Ms Carrie Tan: Okay, laughter is good too. Mr Speaker, Sir, 2020 was a tumultuous year for all. Through our nation's first ever circuit breaker and almost a year of job losses across many sectors, we have pulled through, thanks to the multiple Budgets and support provided by the Government.

We know from looking back on the 2008 Financial Crisis and what happened in the United States and other democracies around the world, that the most concerning effects of major economic downturns, are political and social. Inequalities worsened by the financial crises led to fertile ground for populist movements and more pronounced political and social division. We cannot be naive in thinking that Singapore can be spared.

While it is critical that we innovate and invest in transforming our economy to keep Singapore relevant globally, the Government also has an imperative to help our people recover, psychologically and socially, from the impact of a large scale crisis.

What is the state of well-being of our people, amidst this historic disruption to lives and livelihoods? We are lucky for Government that has cushioned us well. But, is it really sufficient for only a national care hotline to support our people through what is worldwide, the worst global recession since the Great Depression?

At the same time that we ramp up investments and efforts to drive industry transformation, reskilling, career shifts and so on, we need to be mindful that not everyone can catch up so easily to this "turbo-charged" momentum. Are those amongst us who are least resourced able to catch up?

Last week, an opinion piece in The Straits Times talked about "tightening class circles". The writer Grace Ho discussed network diversity and the side effects of meritocracy. While it was a necessary and effective foundation to build Singapore society on for the past decades, it is not perfect and we now need to address its side effects.

According to a survey commissioned by my esteemed colleague Dr Janil Puthucheary, class segregation and class division is emerging as the biggest fault line in Singapore. A fault line that threatens our social cohesion and national unity. This is likely to be made worse by the effects of the COVID-19 recession.

And yet, we face the challenge of balancing support with prudence. How do we lift up the most vulnerable, during and beyond the current crisis, while conserving our country's reserves? That is a critical question that our Budget needs to address. I believe the answer lies in the word "optimising". In other words, we need to, "spend less, yet achieve more". I know, it sounds easier said than done.

Emeritus Senior Minister Goh spoke years ago about individual action, by those who have more, to reach back and help others behind us to climb the ladder and it is wisdom that is relevant today.

When I was a child, I remembered being told by adults whenever I was given a treat or a snack, to share it with others. My mom or dad would always tell me to offer it to someone else first: "Jie Jie, Aunty, Uncle, would you like to share this with me?" And this reframe became a habit, even now, as an adult, for me.

The virtue of sharing that many of us learnt as children, needs to be "Turbo-charged" with the Government's will and support, so that there is a national strategy for sharing and optimisation. Because "Sharing is Caring", we can achieve better outcomes with less resources. But how do we share? And what do we share? I would like to propose sharing in at least three key areas of care: we can optimise public rental housing by sharing; we can optimise the workforce by sharing; we can optimise care and potential of the most vulnerable amongst us by sharing.

My hon colleagues, Ms Tin Pei Ling, spoke about the potential of seniors, and Ms Ng Ling Ling spoke about the potential of persons with disabilities. I would like to propose, that we can also optimise the potential of our low-income and rental housing community.

First, on public rental housing. We have an amazing public housing system to tap on to optimise social outcomes for the poorest families. Currently, rental flat residents face social stigma, poor living conditions and lack of care resources – barriers that prevent them from breaking out of poverty. Yet, we have an opportunity that the aging society has given us, that is, an increasing number of isolated elderly in purchased flats. Ms Ng Ling Ling spoke about this earlier. In 2019, there were almost 67,600 people above the age of 65 living alone, with 86% of them wishing to live in the same flats that they raised their families in. Such homes owned by the elderly living alone may be under-utilised, as some rooms go unused. The elderly who live alone are more likely to be socially isolated and at increased risk of adverse health outcomes.

At the same time, almost 10% of all rental households have more than four members and many have care-giving needs that cannot be fulfilled by existing care channels. A simple solution then exists, to encourage more elderly homeowners to share their living space, by renting out their spare rooms to low-income families at appropriate rates subsidised by HDB. Low-income families can then live in better environments, with care and support for the young, and elderly living alone, will no longer be alone and have social interaction on a daily basis. Such a housing sharing strategy will help to mitigate class silos and reduce the need to build more. I call this the "Share to Care" strategy.

Second, our workforce. Against the backdrop of falling birth rates, Singapore faces a workforce crisis in the coming decades. Burnout and stress rank high amongst working age Singaporeans, making Singapore top the ranks in an international study for stressed-out Generation Z. A recent study showed that Gen Z makes up 24% of the workforce and millennials 50%. Mental health struggles and declining local workforce due to low birth rate amongst these two generations is putting us in the path of a human capital crisis. We need to take this seriously. But what can we do?

I suggest we look into the Sharing of Care. Number one, to share the load of care through progressive workplace policies to relieve stress for sandwiched families; and two, to relief the burden of care, by sharing the cost savings from institutional healthcare, with low-wage stay-home care-givers. I will speak more about these Sharing of Care strategies during the Committee of Supply debates.

Lastly, our Careforce. What is a Careforce? It is a whole sector of people who work in caring for our underserved communities. I am very thankful and encouraged by the Budget announcement that the 250% Institute of Public Character, or IPC tax-deductions for donations will be extended to end 2023. I am also very grateful to the Deputy Prime Minister for initiating the $20 million Change for Charity grant to encourage those who can afford to spend, to spend towards charity. Such encouragement certainly goes a long way to increase the pool of financial resources being channelled to the most vulnerable.

However, beyond distributing cash support directly in the form of support schemes, I would like to encourage the Government to further develop our capacity for care. In the current Budget, $11 billion have been allocated for structural economic policies in the COVID-19 Resilience Package, with another $24 billion committed over the next three years. Much of it focuses on equipping businesses and workers for industry transformations and future-ready capabilities. What seems to be missing, is an investment in preparing and professionalising the work of care amongst the social services sector.

I have some suggestions to build a more effective social safety net and strengthen the trampoline for the vulnerable. Beyond surviving, we need to set them up to thrive. ComLink is a good start. We need our social services sector to consist of experts who are skilled at discovering and building up the strengths and assets of our underserved communities. So that we can avoid, in the future, heading down the slippery slope of a welfare state.

I seek the Deputy Prime Minister to share the $11 billion COVID-19 Resilience Budget with our Careforce – the social services sector to make this happen. We need to share our resources towards care and to capacity build care. I will speak more about this again during the Committee of Supply Debates.

In conclusion, Speaker, Sir, I would like to emphasise the importance of care for our people. At the same time, that forces beyond our control compel us to drive our people harder. The tragic case of the foreign domestic worker Ms Phaing Ngaih Don suffering abuse that led to her death, it makes us questions ourselves – how might we have prevented it? It shows that we have a long way to go, in paying attention to the people who work around us, who care for those around us. Some of these people are in precariously vulnerable circumstances and how are they being cared for?

In our busyness and eagerness to keep Singapore relevant and competitive for survival, are we paying sufficient attention to the care and well-being of people? Not just our own people. But also those who enable us, the silent everyday heros and heroines including our foreign domestic workers and our migrant workers.

Whilst the support packages in the Budget are helpful to reduce some day-to-day burdens of Singaporeans, we need to innovate and invest in transforming our social support structures, in order to achieve more with less, in the long run.

Sharing is more sustainable.

Sharing builds trust.

Sharing fosters bonding and social cohesion.

We must create Sharing policies in the system, sooner rather than later, to care better. More than ever, we need to put Sharing on steroids, with Budget allocated to build capacity into our system and to create for better long-term outcomes for the vulnerable and the under-served. In doing so, we then have hope of bridging the gap.

Some of the ideas I suggested may seem daunting and fraught with challenges, and for this, we need courage, trust and collaboration.

Although some extent of inequality is inevitable in modern economies and societies, the least we can do and we certainly can, and we certainly must, minimise it. Our identity as a country, as Singaporeans, must go beyond being the strongest, the fittest and the fastest in economic terms.

The greatness of a nation can be judged by how it treats its weakest member. Perhaps, by slowing down to take better care of the weakest and to enable them better, it can take us further.

Our national unity, counts on it an our identity as Singaporeans, count on it, if we are indeed to emerge stronger together. With that, I support the Budget. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.

3.47 pm

Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me today to speak on the Budget.

I would first like to declare that I am a practising lawyer and the Co-Chairperson of the Law Society’s Community Legal Clinics’ Committee.

I have previously shared with this House before about my G.E.L mission in Woodgrove – where "G" pertains to green living initiatives, "E" is about embracing parenthood and "L" is in relation to law awareness.

I intend to speak more about these three aspects today as I propose some suggestions on the Budget.

During the recent debate on the Motion to Accelerate and Deepen Efforts against Climate Change, I spoke about the role of the 3Ps – the Government, corporations and our people – in promoting sustainability, as well as the initiatives that the Woodgrove community intends to implement and participate in.

I am, therefore, heartened by the recent launch of the Singapore Green Plan 2030. As I had mentioned previously, Woodgrove intends to work closely with the 3Ps to embrace a greener living lifestyle for the better well-being of our future generations.

In the City in Nature element of the Singapore Green Plan 2030, it details that we target to double our annual tree planting rate to plant 1 million more trees across Singapore, while increasing the land area of our nature parks, such that every household will be within 10-minutes’ walk from a park.

I welcome these initiatives as these new targets promise a natural infrastructure that not just cools the environment and improves air quality, but also provides more places for families to stay active and bond together.

With that said, I believe that there is a dire need for us to ensure that our parks and the facilities within them remain a safe environment of all users.

I therefore suggest that we adopt a mindset of maintainability and sustainability as we attempt to preserve nature and undertake landscaping within our built-up environments. Some suitable measures include: the selection of suitable trees and plants; siting the planting areas away from high human traffic areas; and the adoption of strict maintenance regimes to check the health of trees periodically.

At the same time, I would also hope that NParks will work closely with the grassroots committees to organise more awareness workshops, sharing tips on how to recognise potential hazards in parks and what to do when a park-related accident occurs. Together, we can work as a community to prevent any unfortunate accidents from happening.

I agree with Deputy Prime Minister that to strengthen our social compact, we must work together to address the challenges faced by the more vulnerable members of our society. However, I believe that another group that also requires more support and have not been mentioned in this year’s Budget are the first-time parents expecting or raising their new-born children.

As a mother of a two-year-old daughter, I can still remember the uncertainty and stress that I had experienced during my pregnancy and within the first few months of her birth. Because I wanted to ensure that I was on the "right track" during my pregnancy, I devoted extra time outside of my busy work schedule to research and attending workshops. Later on when my daughter was born, I encountered more unforeseen challenges in caring for her, which became another mental weight that I had to handle as well.

I eventually shared my experiences in more detail on several occasions, like the PAP Women’s Wing Dialogue session. Each time, fellow mothers would write to me afterwards to share their own personal stories of overcoming difficulties in parenting. Like myself, they had all faced tremendous stress and feelings of helplessness during pregnancy and after the birth of their child.

I have since realised through their shared experiences that most of the care and concern afforded by society tends to surround the health of the child, but we may have neglected the well-being of the mother as a result.

In order to ensure a healthy, nurturing environment for the baby, I believe that it is important to take equal care of the mother as well. In light of this, I would therefore like to propose to develop a "Mummy’s milestone booklet", to be provided to expecting couples. In Taiwan, it is called "the Maternal Health Handbook – 孕妇健康手册".

This milestone booklet would be akin to a baby's health booklet, but instead would help to track the expecting mother’s physical and emotional development. At the same time, it would also contain pertinent information by health practitioners regarding the necessary preparations for each stage of pregnancy, parenting best practices and as well as a list of the support systems available to all parents for the first few years of their journey into parenthood.

Some examples of what I envision would be in the booklet include items such as a checklist of vaccinations required for expecting mothers, recommended dates to sign up for pre-natal classes and a checklist of items to prepare for the arrival of the baby, along with tips on how to spot signs of labour or post-natal depression symptoms, and where to seek support in this regard.

I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that children with special needs require more support from us. Apart from providing the necessary financial assistance, it is also important to seek more awareness and understanding from the community.

As members of society, each of us can and should play our part to make it as inclusive as possible by increasing awareness and empathy towards select groups in our communities, particularly for our youths with special needs. This will not only allow them to achieve their fullest potential in life, but will also help us to foster a more tolerant environment for everyone.

During one of my coffeeshop walkabouts at Woodgrove, one resident shared with me that her daughter suffers from Selective Mutism, which is an anxiety disorder that prevents her child from speaking in specific social settings out of fear, such as in school or public areas.

People who suffer from Selective Mutism may also exhibit other defensive behaviour such as disobeying instructions or shutting down entirely in stressful social situations, all of which can affect academic performance and social relationships with people outside of the home environment.

On another occasion during one of my e-townhall chit-chat sessions with residents, the parents of a child with autism took the opportunity to apologise to their neighbours for one of their child’s outbursts during the middle of the night. While they have consistently taken steps to minimise disruptions, such episodes can still happen occasionally.

In cases like these, some awareness and empathy from the public can go a long way towards mitigating the effects of such conditions, allowing the affected youth to not only focus on their studies and vocations, but also to integrate better within society.

Apart from providing financial support to vulnerable groups, we must also look into ensuring that the assets of these vulnerable groups are better managed.

I share the same sentiment as my parliamentary colleague, Mr Derrick Goh, as what he had shared yesterday, that one of the prevailing concerns at the moment is the prevention of individuals from falling prey to scams. I, therefore, urge for continuous efforts and collaborations between the relevant Ministries, banks, Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE), and the Law Society of Singapore, to conduct more outreach activities regarding consumer rights, in order to educate individuals – particularly our senior citizens – on how to identify possible scams such as fraudulent investments or purchasing dubious goods. With more knowledge available to them, we will be able to safeguard more people from such practices.

Another area that we should look at, is how to ensure that underprivileged households may continue to be well taken care of in the event that sole breadwinners are suddenly unable to provide for their families. A spouse may become mentally incapacitated one day due to a sudden severe stroke, or an only working child who is tasked to support the aged parents might have encountered an untimely death. Apart from the grief of losing a loved one abruptly, their families will also eventually need to deal with the aftermath, including the issue of finding a new way to secure their livelihood.

I humbly suggest that we consider setting up an estate planning portal online, with support from multiple Ministries, to start educating families on essential legal knowledge and encourage them to begin planning for contingencies. This portal will be dedicated to administrative matters such as CPF nominations, lodging of Lasting Power of Attorney applications, advance medical directives, as well as the registering of wills.

If feasible, the portal may also prove to be a suitable avenue to set out funeral arrangement plans, with the next of kin able to perform the necessary notifications and extract the necessary information required to jumpstart the administration of the estate upon the passing of an individual.

Lastly, the portal can also provide further value by collaborating with the Singapore Academy of Law, to provide bite-sized, easy-to-understand legal knowledge on estate planning and the Law Society's Pro Bono Services to devise a way for the platform to dispense legal advice virtually. Since the circuit breaker, the Law Society Pro Bono Services’ Community Legal Clinics have been offering preliminary legal advice service to residents in need via virtual platforms. In Mandarin, please, Mr Speaker.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Since last year, CPF members have been able to log into their CPF accounts using their SingPass and nominate their beneficiaries online. At present, more than two in five CPF members have made a nomination on who will receive their CPF savings after their death, as well as the percentage received by each beneficiary.

Many Singaporeans may not know that CPF nominations can bring many benefits. This will allow the CPF Board to understand the wishes of its members and to communicate more quickly with the beneficiaries and disburse what is left by the CPF members after they die.

If you do not nominate a CPF beneficiary, your CPF savings will be transferred to the Public Trustee Office (PTO) who will distribute them to your family members under the Intestate Succession Act or the Muslim Administration Act after your death. For many beneficiaries from poor families, this procedure is cumbersome, time-consuming and costly. The PTO will also charge the beneficiaries a statutory administration fee, calculated based on the amount of CPF savings left behind.

During the pandemic, I encountered several cases where residents sought financial help from me because they could not pay for the funeral expenses of their deceased relatives.

To encourage more CPF members to nominate their beneficiaries, I hope the Government will consider using PayNow to transfer a sum of money from the deceased CPF savings to the nominated beneficiary’s bank account immediately upon his death so as to defray the funeral expenses of the deceased and alleviate the financial burden of the family during this period.

(In English): In conclusion, Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the suggestions which I have put forward in my speech earlier, I stand in support of the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Miss Cheryl Chan.

4.02 pm

Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (East Coast): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Budget.

Budget 2021, termed a Budget to "Emerge Stronger Together", does indeed try to achieve its objectives through continuing more targeted support for our ailing industries whilst providing large investments to transform the economy to ride on the wave of new opportunities. While spending may appear more tapered when contrasted against 2020's historical spending over five Budgets, I am cheered and look forward to this new wave of growth.

However, beyond the initial high over these astronomical investments into new growth areas, I cannot help but to be concerned over our current fiscal position and wonder how Singapore is evolving as a nation when it comes to national spending. It is the third time and second consecutive year that we are dipping into our reserves. Would Deputy Prime Minister Heng be outlining a projected timeline and roadmap on when these amounts would be returned to the reserves? While dipping into our reserves are justified to address the current problems, on a broader scale there have been repeated rallying calls for the Government to be more generous in social spending too.

I am heartened that as a nation many are looking out for one another and calling for social changes through greater social support for the lower income, for the frontline workers and for the migrant workers.

However, have we envisaged and weighed the trade-offs? Often called a tiny red dot, we must never forget that we are still a small nation with limited resources and no natural resources. I say this not to merely highlight the small size of our country and to think small but rather quite the opposite – to think big, to put this Budget into perspective and not perceive it as an annual ritual on what "goodies" or "penalties" it presents.

I would ask that we think longer time – how would this Budget, the strategic investments, affect and impact our loved ones, our children and subsequent generations to come? Would they benefit from these investments made or would they have to pay in terms of higher taxes in the future to fund our current expenditure? Fifty-six years on since Independence, we survived not by chance but intentional efforts by our forefathers to ensure that we and future generations would benefit and lead better life than theirs.

Against the backdrop of heightened international competition for investments, Government revenues are tightening as costs are escalating especially so when we have an ageing population and the new economic trends. It is important that we first try to think how to stretch our existing resources, our every dollar, instead of cultivating a mentality that we have reserves to dip into.

With the concept of fiscal prudence in mind, I would like to touch on two areas.

First, exploring alternatives in supplementing social policies to support specific groups. Mr Speaker, it is heartening that even with finite resources, the special needs community are not neglected with the introduction of the pilot Inclusive Support Programme in this Budget. As a nation, we try to level the playing field starting from pre-school, those with special needs are included to enable them to develop social skills and social inclusion. As we look into the longer horizon when this community graduates from formal education and start the next stage of their life – work, how can we better ensure that they are prepared?

When circuit breaker happened last year with many businesses shut, many in the special-needs community struggled to find alternative roles. For this community, the larger impact they face goes beyond income as their routine was abruptly disrupted, with the mental state for many of them inevitably scarred. With the new and future economy, can we find avenues for more micro jobs to be created for adults with special needs? With wider acceptance of remote working, this model of work shift can well be adapted to support the special needs and residents with specialised skills within the community. Longer term, empowering the special needs community would benefit the society as well, with a reduction in reliance on social spending especially when their care-givers age.

Another group that is often neglected is the women who provide care-giving for seniors, young children and those with special needs. Care-giving is a service, a dedication that not many would embark on if they have another alternative. It takes love, patience and commitment to provide for those that are dependent on others to get about their daily needs.

Today, as family units shrink and more are dual income families, there is a high reliance on day care centres, foreign domestic helpers and some family members had to give up their careers to care for the vulnerable at home. This trend is likely on the rise in future. But at the same time, the pandemic has changed the way we work and live.

With the support of technology and identification of community-based resources, we should consider enabling platforms that augment the needs of families closer to home. Connect the women who can provide part-time services within distance of their home, enable essential workers, especially the low-income families or single mothers to balance care-giving duties and also supplement their income with work within the community. Others who wish to volunteer and contribute through ground-up initiatives, can do so without unnecessarily being incumbered by regulatory frameworks.

A recent example is that of a Ghim Moh resident, Ms Looi, who set up a community library for children at the lift landing in front of her HDB flat. It not only highlights the value of kindness and giving, but also strengthens neighbourliness and instill the love for reading at a young age. Such is the society we hope to build. One that gives and one that cares by supporting one another within the community.

Another select group of individuals I wish to highlight that requires our help – the elderly who are "asset-rich", cash poor. Traditional thinking conjures up the notion that these elderlies can easily liquidate their existing homes to unlock the cash for retirement needs. However, things are unfortunately not so straightforward. Sociologists have also shared that getting the elderly to uproot and move to an unfamiliar environment can be a traumatising experience for some.

In my own constituency, I have some elderly residents living in Chempaka Kuning area whose land lease expires in 2034, just 13 years from now. Some of them live with their spouse, some singles and others living only with support of a domestic helper. Many have shared with me that some inherited the asset from their parents and others actually purchased them decades ago at a very low value. After retirement, they have minimal cash savings and are feeling the pinch from daily expenses and medical bills. Each time, they receive little or no Government support as their property assets mean that they do not meet the qualifying criteria for many of the handouts. This is above and beyond the impending loom and anxieties on the uncertainties ahead on where they would live next. Their property does not fetch much value with limited lease and downsizing to public property will also cost them almost just as much as the net sales proceeds if they are able to sell the asset now.

While I understand the rationale of having a viable economy and healthy employment rate that supports a broad segment of society, but what happens to those who fall through the cracks and are unable to monetise their assets during crisis due to the policies that are in place, health conditions and family complications.

Thus, with these considerations in mind, I would like to ask if the Government can rethink how annual values of properties should be assessed as a criterion, if the applicants actually fulfill all other criteria for each of the benefit schemes. Also, the need for annual property value criteria under means-testing to be differently considered in times of crisis, for example the pandemic. Can the Ministry consider providing support on essentials related to utilities and transport vouchers for this particular group as most are no longer working or have no private transportation means.

With finite state resources and funds, the continuation of tax rebates to encourage charity donations is a step in the right direction. Beyond these charity donations, could we explore the development of philanthropic activities in Singapore to plug these gaps, for those that fall through the cracks? Perhaps more engagement with the wealthy naturalised Singaporeans alongside being involved with the community activities of Singapore could also help to ease and connect them to the community.

Make no mistake that Singaporeans are generous and many of the wealthy are already donating, with some even choosing to do so in their private capacity and keeping this private. These donations are lauded and well appreciated. However, what I am appealing for is a more consolidated effort in philanthropic activities, leveraging on National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre, to act as a better and more sustainable supplement to Government policies.

And the second area: stretching our investment dollar. In my previous Budget speeches, I had expounded on the need in measuring investment outcomes beyond just monetary value and instead focus on building a social eco-system for more sustainable and long-lasting positive outcomes. I am heartened that in this Budget, with this industry transformation, more emphasis is being placed on connectivity and value creation – focusing on how local companies can grow and with the creation of partners to build new growing segments of future industry. It will greatly help to bring about a value chain within the industry that can expand beyond our shores.

With the extension of SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package, as well as other investments for business transformation and the pivot towards a green economy, how can we better ensure that these investments ultimately create positive spillovers for the economy beyond the basis that it is a wage subsidy?

The Straits Times recently reported that, understandably so, fewer new graduates landed full-time jobs last year with MOM looking at ways to link up unemployed fresh graduates with opportunities. Could the private sector be better tapped on for suitable matching of jobs? Beyond engaging the private sector through the engagement with the Institute for Human Resource Professionals (IHRP), could we have more engagement sessions with the private sector on a jobseeker level?

Additionally, as we make the pivot towards a more sustainable focused economy, what would the future green jobs be like? I call that we work closer and define these in the new economy, and better harness the synergy between the public and the private sectors to reimagine how the future of job is like. With the push for businesses and workers to internationalise, the question is "how" for such emerging opportunities.

All in all, with greater geopolitical tensions and heightened competition for foreign investments, the perennial question would be how then do we allocate funds optimally given shrinking revenues and increasing costs? There would always be infinite needs and finite resources. It is time that we ask ourselves, how can we do better with this dollar being spent?

Solutions need not always to be monetary and grandiose in nature, simpler solutions like creating and enhancing the quality of local and community networks could just be what we need. What is important is for all of us to come together with a "can-do attitude". As a nation, beyond the immediate handouts that many look forward to in the release of Budgets, it is critical that we view the Budget with a lens of strategic importance – preserving our national strategic interests and standing and ensuring that with immediate problems being addressed, it does not come at the cost of future generations and our future relevancy. Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Miss Cheng Li Hui.

4.14 pm

Miss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Budget. It is a sombre and cautious Budget. It focuses on a few key areas to prepare ourselves for life after COVID-19, especially to transform our economy and emerge stronger.

Mr Speaker, during these pandemic times, with social activities curbed, night spots closed, I wonder if we would see a surge in birth rates in the coming months. That will certainly be a blessing to the families and a boon for our population.

Our Total Fertility Rate (TFR) has been low at 1.14 for 2018 and 2019. This is indeed worrying. I felt that the topic of assisted reproduction is neglected in this House, and today, I would like to focus on this topic.

I applaud the Marriage and Parenthood Scheme, which offers a number of financing schemes to help Singaporeans with the costs of conception, maternity, delivery and newborn care. In particular, allowing the use of MediSave for assisted conception and co-funding for the assisted reproduction technology (ART) procedures in public hospitals, which has greatly reduced the financial burden for many Singaporeans.

Sir, before COVID-19, I used to visit newborns and their families in Tampines East regularly. On one occasion, a new mom told me, "Thanks to the Government, I got my baby." I was puzzled and she explained the ART co-funding scheme. You see, both her sons were from IVF treatments – the second was from her frozen embryo. She also told me the experience with her second child at the same public hospital was better than the first. She said public fertility clinics have improved with shorter waits for procedures.

On another occasion, as I cradled a newborn, the new mum exclaimed, "Miss Cheng, she's asleep. Keep her there. She is from our eighth attempt. I thought ART was tiring. She is more tiring", and laughed. This determined new mom did three rounds of IUI and five rounds of IVF before her girl came along.

All these chats with families made me more aware of the different experiences that couples go through to become parents, and I started to ask more and listen to their stories.

Sir, I am going to give several accounts today. I hope that by doing so, we can review how our assisted conception policies can be further enhanced to help couples fulfil their dream of becoming parents.

In mid-2019, when the PAP Women's Wing wanted to do a paper, we put out a joint survey on flexi-work, pre-school considerations and special needs. I decided to put out another survey on my Facebook to understand people's views on social egg freezing and other related questions, such as donor eggs, single motherhood, raising the IVF age limit of 45 and if they have children, were they conceived naturally, through treatments or adoption. I also gave them space to write their views on every question.

In the 10 days after I sent out my survey, I had 716 respondents and over 400 who wrote their views and gave their contact details. Here are some verbatims from them.

What is egg freezing?

"I did not know egg freezing is prohibited."

"I spoke to my daughter in her 20s after I saw your survey. She froze in USA before returning because she knows is prohibited here."

"It was against my religious belief until I saw my daughter-in-law going through IVF. Please allow it."

"My cousins froze their eggs in JB."

It seemed like quite a number of ladies go overseas for social egg freezing. Today, in Singapore, only women with justifiable medical conditions are allowed to freeze their eggs. For example, a woman who is about to undergo cancer treatment may freeze her eggs for future use.

What about voluntary egg freezing? Is there room for a rethink on this long standing policy of not allowing healthy females to freeze their eggs? Why do we create this environment where healthy women have to bear the cost and risk of doing this procedure overseas?

It is my belief that voluntary egg freezing can be allowed with legislation and a proper framework put in place.

One suggestion is to make counselling session mandatory for women who intend to embark on this procedure. They should be fully informed of the procedure, financial costs, risks, the notion that it does not guarantee conception later on and most importantly, the emotional roller-coaster ride that they will be undergoing.

Legislation can be put in place to prevent the abuse of voluntary egg freezing and they should include the following.

An age limit of 40 years old should be considered as the quality of their eggs deteriorate drastically beyond the age of 35. For egg thawing and fertilisation to take place in the laboratory, the couple must be legally married.

Sir, with voluntary egg freezing prohibited here, it also means we have no eggs bank. This means ladies of certain age or with poor eggs quality will have to source for donor eggs overseas or adopt.

A resident asked me what a donor egg was and I explained. He told me that the option was never made known to him in public hospital. His wife's eggs could not be fertilised and after several extractions and failures, the emotional stress was too much and they gave up IVF. If there was the option of the donor egg, his wife would have loved the chance to carry a child herself and fulfil her dream of motherhood. They eventually adopted a child from Indonesia.

Another couple came to my Meet-the-People session to tell me their story. The wife wanted to explain the emotional stress to me personally so we could help others. She said she could not bring herself to return to the same clinic after each failed attempt or miscarriage. Thus, each time, they had to change doctor and clinic. After years of ordeal, today, they have three lovely children. She wanted to donate the rest of her embryos and eggs but learnt from her gynecologist that there is no such option here.

For private fertility clinics, they can source for donor eggs overseas and they can have the procedures done here. I know some of my residents who froze their eggs and/or conceived through IVF overseas. A few couples have told me they felt that the cost of IVF here is higher. The amount of money they pay for two IVF attempts here may be enough for three attempts overseas so they get more chances for the same investment.

Getai celebrity, Liu Ling Ling, also disclosed in the media that she had her son via IVF in JB when she was 50 years old. It was a different story then. Then, IVF procedure was not allowed for ladies above the age of 45. The rule changed in 2019.

I do wonder what happened to couples who were seeking IVF treatments overseas before 2020. For those who needed to access their frozen eggs or embryos in other countries, how did they bring them back for their IVF treatments last year? In the past, doctors used to tell me, "No worries, just courier back". But with the current travel restrictions, I wonder whether these procedures can still occur.

Sir, the survey meant so much to some. I recall vividly this encounter when I was in a multi-storey carpark after one block visit and noticed a young couple with Police officers. The man's car was vandalised. As I approached, he ran over and thanked me. He said his wife and him did the survey together. His wife had suffered a miscarriage before and they wrote about it in the survey. He smiled and added that she was due the next month. And when I enquired about the car, he said, "No, no, go do more important things. We are happy you did this."

Next, education and awareness. There is a lack of fertility awareness and on treatment and tests. Some hospitals gave out free fertility health checks in 2019 hoping to promote awareness but that stopped with the pandemic. We need to do more to promote understanding on the subject for couples. With the availability of online platforms, our public hospitals should conduct more fertility awareness talks online so that couples can participate in the privacy of their homes. We should consider the use of MediSave for fertility health checks, which cost around $400, or if possible, fully subsidise it if they do it within first three years of marriage, to encourage couples to seek assistance earlier.

One of my Meet-the-People session cases was a lady who got married at age 40 in 2019. She understood the low chance of natural conception and quickly appealed for IVF co-funding. However, the new rule only allows two rounds of co-funding if the IVF process was started before the age of 40. The appeal failed and the couple paid for it on their own. She managed to extract two eggs, both successfully fertilised but did not result in pregnancy.

Perhaps, the Government can consider progressively reducing the co-funding amount with age but extend some help to healthy couples who just passed the age of 40.

My most recent appeal case was just in January 2021. Mr Lee and wife have been trying for a child for seven years and are both 37 years old now. They have just completed two rounds of IVF but unfortunately, both resulted in miscarriage. According to their gynecologist, they cannot send the embryos to NUH's Pre-implantation Genetic Screening (PGS) Diagnosis Lab, the only approved centre in Singapore, unless they have defective gene and so on.

Sir, I had mentioned earlier about couples seeking treatment across the Causeway. On CNA Insider in April 2019, it was mentioned that couples seek treatment just 10 minutes across the Causeway in the cluster of fertility clinics in JB because one, cost; and two, PGS is allowed there. This testing and screening for the correct number of chromosomes can improve the chances of success. But this is not readily available here. We have had a pilot programme for three years. When will it go mainstream? We should allow more to screen their embryos if they have suffered miscarriages, provided no gender selection.

Mr Speaker, how can we relax the rules in voluntary egg freezing and yet be mindful of the medical concerns, as well as the social and ethical implications surrounding this whole issue?

There are many countries around the world where voluntary egg freezing is legal and have been allowed for many years. We will certainly be able to learn, adopt and adapt the best practices to suit our local environment.

Through all the families and women I have encountered who have shared with me their stories, I believe that women undergo voluntary egg freezing because they truly want to be a mother. This is a beautiful and wonderful thought but unfortunately out of reach for some in Singapore. I hope that as we continue to push on with our plans to re-open society and our economy in a safe and sustainable way, we will be able to relook at voluntary egg freezing and open our hearts and minds to support the hopes and dreams of many families here in Singapore. With that, Mr Speaker, I support the Budget.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.45 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.25 pm until 4.45 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.45 pm.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate on Annual Budget Statement

Debate resumed.

The Minister of State for Education and Social and Family Development (Ms Sun Xueling): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak on how Budget 2021 supports our Singapore women.

The Singapore Government is fully committed to the advancement of all Singapore women.

In 1961, the Legislative Assembly of Singapore debated the Women’s Charter and subsequently institutionalised the rights and protection of women and girls via the Women’s Charter. The Women’s Charter celebrates its 60th anniversary this year.

We have a longstanding commitment to building a society of equal opportunities where all Singaporeans, including women, can achieve their full potential.

And statistics reflect our progress. In 2019, the literacy rate for women was 96.1%. And of residents aged 25 years and above and having a university degree, 50.8% are women. As Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu Mahzam earlier mentioned, in 2020, the employment rate for women was 73.2%.

But we can always do more to further support and uplift the women in our midst. COVID-19 has brought challenges to women, from increasing the stress of care-giving for some, to increasing financial instability or risk of violence for others.

I will like to touch on how Budget 2021 builds on continuing efforts to support women and their families by: one, supporting women in care-giving; two, supporting vulnerable women; and three, supporting women in their career aspirations.

Our women often play important roles as care-givers in our families, and we want to support them in caring for their loved ones.

The Government is increasing its annual spending on early childhood sector to over $2 billion per annum, within the next few years. These efforts help women, by giving women real choices, as they give women peace of mind should they decide to go back to work when they have a young child.

To ensure accessible, affordable and quality pre-schools, the Government has expanded pre-school capacity, and is on track to reach 200,000 pre-school places by 2023.

Families are also now paying less for pre-schools. We have enhanced pre-school subsidies from January 2020, and appointed more pre-schools on the Partner Operator scheme with lowered fee caps for all Singaporean children from January 2021. Taken together, this means that a Singaporean child will receive about $50,000 in Government funding over five years when the child enrols in a full-day childcare programme with one of the Anchor Operators. Low- and middle income families can additionally receive up to $28,000 in means-tested childcare subsidies.

Budget 2021 builds on these efforts and goes further. We know that care-givers with young children with developmental needs may find it even more challenging to care for their children. We have thus announced that in Budget 2021, we are stepping up efforts to better support young children with developmental needs.

The Government currently provides Government-funded early intervention, or EI, services to about 5,600 children below age seven with developmental needs. Of these, 1,900 children are served in the Development Support Learning Support, or DS-LS, and Development Support Plus, or DS-Plus, programmes delivered in pre-schools, while 3,700 children are served in the Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children, or EIPIC, delivered in EI centres.

Currently, about 75% of children, aged three to six years old, who attend EIPIC provided at EI centres, also attend pre-schools. These "dual schoolers" shuttle between the pre-school and EI centre two to three times a week.

I co-chair the Inclusive Pre-school Workgroup and the workgroup had engaged about 900 participants, including parents on their views regarding inclusion and support for children with developmental needs.

In an online survey, parents and care-givers, the majority being mothers, rated travelling time between pre-schools and EI centres as being among their top three concerns.

The care-givers shared with us the strain of having to shuttle their children between the pre-school and the EI centre multiple times a week, and their concern being their children’s development when they are in pre-school.

We have thus announced in Budget 2021 that we are piloting a new "Inclusive Support Programme", or InSP, where there will be in-school support for children who require up to medium levels of EI support.

This will allow the children to meaningfully participate alongside their typically developing peers and reduce care-giver burden and stress, which arise when shuttling their children between the two centres.

Typically developing children and their families will also benefit from enhanced teacher training and development of stronger social skills from a young age.

The InSP pilot will be launched at a few selected pre-schools and, if successful, we hope to expand the InSP to more pre-schools, and lighten the load for mothers who care for children with developmental needs.

For care-givers of Persons with Disabilities, or PWDs, the Enabling Masterplan 3 had highlighted the need to improve care-givers’ well-being and enhance their care-giving capabilities, including by creating more peer support and informal support networks.

We have thus introduced the SG Together Alliance for Action, or SG Together AfA, on Care-givers of Persons with Disabilities. Through this, NCSS and SG Enable will work with the community to tackle the pressing issue of supporting care-givers of persons with disabilities.

For a start, the SG Together AfA on Caregivers of Persons with Disabilities will focus on self-help and mutual support. SG Enable will identify stakeholders who have common interests in peer mentorship and other informal forms of informal support, and shape and coordinate their efforts. If successful, a similar approach can be adopted to support other care-givers as well.

Next, I would like to touch on supporting women who may be more vulnerable. COVID-19 has brought many challenges to families, with incomes and lifestyles impacted, all of which can lead to conflict within the family and in some serious cases, family violence.

MSF’s Adult and Child Protective Services saw a 40% increase in the number of average monthly enquiries between January and October 2020, as compared to the same period in 2019. Though not all enquiries are related to family violence, and they include repeat calls by the same individuals, or multiple callers reporting the same incidents, we have to keep a close watch on these trends.

The launch of the National Anti-Violence Helpline, or NAVH, a few days ago, is a reflection of Government and community partnership in tackling family violence together. The NAVH is the first integrated helpline for the reporting of family violence and other forms of violence, abuse and neglect. The NAVH operates 24/7, all year round to make it easier for victims of violence and abuse, members of the public and professionals to seek help.

The Task Force on Family Violence, that I co-chair with Minister of State Assoc Prof Mohammad Faishal, has also studied the landscape and possible causes of family violence and we will be putting up recommendations to the Minister of Home Affairs and Law, and the Minister of Social and Family Development.

The Conversations on Singapore Women’s Development was launched in September 2020 to take a comprehensive look at issues that impact women at home, workplaces, schools and the community. Participants in the Conversations have raised the issue of what the approach to punishment should be for hurt and sexual offences. MHA and MinLaw have reviewed the sentencing framework for hurt and sexual offences, and a Ministerial Statement will be made at a later date.

We are cognisant of the fact that regardless of the progress that Singapore women have made on many fronts, we must continue to guarantee the physical protection and well-being of our women and girls.

COVID-19 has also impacted the incomes of women, and we have introduced various forms of assistance, to help those who need help over this difficult period.

In 2020, we introduced the Temporary Relief Fund and the COVID-19 Support Grant, to tide Singaporeans through the financial impact of COVID-19. Given COVID-19’s protracted economic impact, in January 2021, we launched the COVID-19 Recovery Grant. All in all, about 210,000 of our working women have benefited from financial support through these schemes. A Budget measure may thus not be explicitly targeted at women but it is no less impactful and meaningful for them.

And as announced by Deputy Prime Minister Heng in the Budget Statement, we will be introducing a Household Support Package, or HSP, in order to provide additional support for families, during this time of economic uncertainty.

Lower to middle income families will receive more and this includes women who lack family support, such as elderly females who live alone.

Even as we support our women for their needs and guarantee their protection and well-being, we also want to support them in achieving their aspirations.

Many women and men during the Conversations on Singapore Women's Development have shared feedback on how women can be supported in the workplace and their career aspirations, such as having more women in corporate leadership positions and putting in place formal and informal mentorship and networking platforms for women leaders to support and learn from each other.

The Council for Board Diversity, or CBD, is one such platform, set up by the MSF, to look into having more women on boards. The CBD promotes sustained increases in the number of women on boards of SGX-listed companies, Statutory Boards and Institutions of a Public Character, or IPCs, by encouraging organisations to be more diverse and proactively identifying and grooming potential board-ready women.

Our women leaders play key roles in our IPCs, as leaders or board members. And our IPCs have stepped up their support during the COVID-19 period. The Government is strongly supporting such efforts through various Budget 2021 initiatives such as the extension of tax deductions for donations to IPCs. Mr Speaker Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Singapore Government is fully committed to the advancement of all Singapore women.

In 1961, the Legislative Assembly of Singapore debated the Women’s Charter and institutionalised the rights and protection of women and girls via the Women’s Charter. The Women’s Charter celebrates its 60th anniversary this year.

But each era brings about new challenges and we need to continue to work hard at ensuring progress for our women.

Fundamental to this is our continuing commitment to guaranteeing the physical protection and well-being of our women and girls.

COVID-19 has brought significant stress to families and in some extreme cases, has led to family violence against women. The Taskforce on the Prevention of Family Violence which I co-chair, will be putting up its proposals to see how we can raise further awareness about family violence and the channels of help available, refine processes to ensure ready and effective help rendered to victims and propose interventions where perpetrators are concerned.

We have also noted the public’s concerns over hurt and sexual offences against women and the Ministry of Home Affairs and Law will be making a ministerial statement on their review of the sentencing framework.

We are also concerned about COVID-19’s impact on women and their livelihoods. Through the temporary relief fund, the COVID-19 support grant and the recently launched COVID-19 recovery grant, about 210,000 working women in Singapore have benefited from financial support in these difficult times.

And as announced by Deputy Prime Minister Heng in the Budget Statement, we will be introducing a Household Support Package and lower to middle income families will receive more. This will also benefit elderly females who live alone, and therefore have fewer means and family support.

For women with children or who are care-givers, they will also benefit from increased support via the Inclusive Support Programme which provides in-school support to children with up to medium level developmental needs and seeks to lessen care-giving burden.

Budget 2021 builds on past efforts to support women and their families and we hope we can work with all parties to build an equitable and inclusive society, where women are supported and enabled to achieve their fullest potential.

(In English): In closing, the 2021 Budget will continue to support our women in the roles they play, and provide support for those who need it.

We have dedicated 2021 as the Year of Celebrating SG Women and I hope you will join us in celebrating the different roles our women play, in our families, for our economy and in our society. Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the Budget. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.

5.01 pm

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Thank you, Speaker, Sir. I stand in support of the Budget.

The hon Member of Parliament Mr Pritam Singh asked about the CDC Vouchers Scheme and the role of CDCs and Mayors. I am one of the Mayors and representing the Mayors now. Let me start with the CDC Vouchers Scheme.

The CDC Vouchers Scheme was conceived for two purposes. One, to help Singapore households defray the cost of living and, two, to support local businesses, especially those in the heartlands. Supporting two target groups affected by the COVID-19 pandemic – residents and heartland businesses.

The first tranche of $20 million was rolled out last year to lower and middle income households, to much success. With that good support, the CDCs recently rolled out another $20 million of CDC Vouchers – what we called Tranche 2 – in January this year.

More than 7,000 merchants have participated in the scheme and there was good feedback. The scheme went beyond the "neighbourhood mom-and-pop shops" that were suggested by the Workers’ Party’s Mr Png Eng Huat. In fact, the range of shops covered the smaller supermarkets, coffee shops, wet and dry market stalls, confectionaries, bakeries, medicine shops, hair salons and so on. So, Mr Singh should have found out that NTUC Fairprice, Sheng Siong and Giant were not included, right from the start.

The function of the CDCs in the Vouchers Scheme is clear. From scratch, the teams organised the resources, communicated the scheme and got as many merchants as possible to sign up and to make full use of this well-intended help scheme. Unlike what Mr Singh mentioned, local bodies like the grassroots Consultative Citizens’ Committees (CCCs) do not always have market and shop representatives sitting in their committees. Instead, merchant and hawker associations are reached by tapping on a network that is organised by the CDCs that comprise CDC and CC staff, contract staff, grassroots volunteers and national bodies, such as the Singapore Federation of Merchants’ Associations and its subsidiary, the Heartlands Enterprise Singapore (HECS).

Sir, Mr Singh’s suggestion to have the CCCs or grassroots volunteers run this multi-million help scheme is either ignorant of or insensitive to the reality on the ground. Grassroots CCCs are not set up to run schemes of this magnitude. In the last year, in fact, many grassroots volunteers were quietly helping in the massive distribution of free sanitizers, free meals, millions of face masks and the Trace Together Token. Even today, they are knocking on doors to encourage residents to go for their vaccinations to get the herd immunity that Singapore would need to keep us safe from COVDI-19. In any case, the CCCs or the grassroots are not set up to organise schemes, such as the CDC Voucher Scheme.

Finally, Sir, back to some of the questions that Mr Singh has brought up on the operation of the next tranche of the $150 million worth of CDC vouchers. This third tranche is intended, of course, to help the residents and the heartland businesses as well. But it is also intended by Deputy Prime Minister Heng and MOF to thank everyone for their support during the COVID-19 period and also to celebrate hawker culture. The tranche is now more than seven times the initial two exercises – due to one key reason. Deputy Prime Minister Heng and his team had listened and decided that the vouchers would be extended to every Singaporean household, regardless of public or private dwelling. The CDCs are still working on the processes, cost and timeframe of the scheme. Details will be announced once they are ready.

I hope that heartland merchants from all the constituencies of Members of Parliament of this House, including Hougang, Aljunied and SengKang GRCs, will join the CDC Voucher scheme so that both merchants and more residents will benefit from it.

Next, I wish to speak on the role of CDCs and Mayors.

The idea of the CDCs was first mooted by the then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in 1996 as part of his vision of a "tightly-knit, compassionate and self-reliant community in Singapore, with the more able in society helping the less able". Unlike Government Ministries, which have very focused functions and missions, CDCs are geographic district-based entities. It is another way to serve citizens who need help. The key mission is to assist, bond and connect. For many years, the CDCs focused primarily on "assisting" and are known mostly to the lower income households for administering, because they administer the Government’s financial assistance schemes. This administration has since been taken over by MSF’s Social Service Offices or SSOs.

Although the SSOs are now administering the financial assistance schemes, CDCs continue to assist in different ways. At the district level, CDCs perform duties that grassroots or Government Ministries are not quite set up to do – effectively, three functions – A, B and C:

(a) Aggregating – finding out – aggregating the needs and distributing resources at the district level;

(b) Building capability for our residents at the district level; and

(c) Connecting all the players who are willing to help in the community.

On the work of the CDCs, as I have said, the CDCs operate at the district level and continue to be called upon to support national initiatives, such as the CDC vouchers scheme I have mentioned. We also do other things, support other national initiatives.

For instance, many of us Mayors are very in support of the lifelong learning culture and SkillsFuture movement of Singapore. In fact, a total of 4,819 free SkillsFuture Advice workshops run by the five CDCs had reached more than 127,000 participants in the last three years. During COVID-19, the five CDCs quickly acquired online capabilities and aggregated resources from Government and non-Government agencies, such as MOE’s SkillsFuture Singapore (SFS) and MOM’s WSG, NTUC's e2i, the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) and private training companies as well. This network, assembled by the CDCs, helped residents navigate the SkillsFuture landscape for them to stay relevant and find jobs during the pandemic. In fact, in one week last year, the partners managed to reach out and connect over 250,000 viewers online and more than 6,000 of them joined in the online SkillsFuture workshops. So, that is one of the examples where the CDCs support national initiatives.

CDCs work at the district level, complementing the work of the grassroots and the Government Ministries, but, more importantly, they are active in the non-grassroots space. The CDCs keep in regular touch with non-grassroots players, such as the district’s business and corporate community, the social service agencies, schools and Institutes of Higher Learning, to name some. With these networks, the five CDCs were able to quickly roll out, during the pandemic between February and October 2020, close to 70 local district initiatives that served over 676,000 beneficiaries.

A recent example is the CDC Student Meals. Within 10 days of the Circuit Breaker, the Mayors received ground feedback that vulnerable students who used to go to the school and received free school meals in school, might not be able to afford meals or might be deprived of free meals during the Circuit Breaker. We sprung into action with a lot of help from the community, we garnered support from corporate partner Grab Singapore, raised funds from a philanthropist introduced by a friend and put in place an initiative to give out e-food vouchers to students in rental flats. The agility and ability to garner resources are one of the CDCs’ uniqueness because we are not part of the big Ministry and we are on the ground with a small team but that is how we remain agile.

Over the years, the CDCs have also championed the culture of giving back to the society. We have regular platforms to foster the spirit of giving by individual volunteers, individual donors, businesses and other partners, either for existing programmes or new ones co-created with our partners. Donors, such as Far East Organisation, United Overseas Bank, StarHub, MayBank, Ngee Ann Kongsi and Kwang Ming San Temples, are but some of the donors that the CDCs were able to approach for our districts' residents. Last year, the CDCs drew on their networks to raise $12.3 million, in cash and kind.

The value of the CDC structure, although within the People’s Association, is its relative agility and ability to respond and develop programmes in the district faster than a bigger Government Ministry. We have developed programmes through innovative solutioning and collaborations with partners to better serve target residents. Some of the more signature district programmes include – let me name just a few on behalf of my fellow Mayors:

(a) North West CDC’s Club 100 which has close to 800 regular donors collectively contributing $1 million a year towards the Northwest Food Aid Programme which benefits low-income households in their 19 divisions;

(b) South East CDC’s famous WALK FOR RICE @ South East in which rice and oats are donated to the district’s vulnerable families, for every 300 metres that participants walk or run;

(c) South West – under Ms Low Yen Ling – South West CDC’s ADOPT @ South West leads more than 100 corporate and community partners to uplift the vulnerable in social wellness, healthcare, home safety, education and enrichment;

(d) North East CDC’s Project Refresh, led by Mayor Desmond Choo, which supports more than 10 volunteer agencies and have refurbished close to 400 households; activating close to 3,500 corporate volunteers;

(e) For Central Singapore district, my CDC, with which, of course, I am most familiar – there are 52 actually in the suite of programmes we have – let me name a few:

(a) Ready for School Cheques, vouchers donated by Far East Organisation to relieve cost of starting school for 12,000 students in the rental households;

(b) The holiday Digital Bootcamps sponsored by UOB for 2,000 students so they would not be overly affected or left behind by any digital divide;

(c) Pan-district projects like The Purple Parade – and I thank Members of Parliament who have joined in this Parade – which is supported by all five Mayors and CDCs. Speaker is always supporting as well, thank you so much! The Purple Parade is Singapore’s largest movement to support inclusion and to celebrate the abilities of persons with disabilities. The disability cause has been supported by Central Singapore CDC since 2013 and is one of its signature initiatives – perhaps still unknown to some. But many of the participants are not people with disabilities. They are people who believe in the cause and they joined us. The Purple Parade reached out to over 10,000 participants annually and connected over 200 corporate and community partners – MNCs like Apple, HP and so forth, local Statutory Boards like the Building Construction Authority (BCA), LTA, MSF, MOE, SMEs, large local enterprises, schools and more than 40 disability organisations – every year. And we have just a small team to work on this. And how we did this was with so many partners.

The COVID-19 pandemic did not stop the Purple Parade and it went online for the first time last year and continued to receive very encouraging support – again, made possible by the strong network cultivated by the CDCs over the years. I have been an active volunteer in the disability sector but I do not think I can pull off the Purple Parade without the support of the CDCs and my fellow Mayors. I am not even certain that there will be a Purple Parade, if not for the CDC.

Sir, I can take another Budget Day to share what the CDCs do. Mr Pritam Singh's accusation that the Government is trying to find some way for the CDCs to be relevant by asking them to manage the CDC vouchers scheme, is belittling the CDCs and their partners.

There is nothing to be ashamed about making sure one is always relevant and can add value, as times change especially.

When Prime Minister Lee graciously created the role of the Leader of the Opposition, much to the surprise of Mr Singh himself, did Mr Singh not accept the role when asked, and the office and the research assistant and the salary and try to do his best to be relevant too? Singaporeans also ask what the role of the Leader of Opposition in our Parliament is, under the circumstances that all nine of the elected Opposition Members of Parliament, all one single Party. What has been different?

Nonetheless, I want to still thank Mr Pritam Singh for bringing up the subject of CDCs. His comment on the CDCs' "relative absence" in the public mindshare has also given us some food for thought. Perhaps, the biggest mistake the CDCs made was not to have better publicised the work we do. But the real work is in the work. How much publicity does one have to put out just to justify one's existence and to prove one's value-add? The real work is in the work and the people we benefited. So, I hope that there are no attempts to politicise the good work of the CDCs and especially our partners. [Applause.]

Would Singapore society be worse or better off without the CDCs? Sir, this is a question that is best answered by the beneficiaries of the work done by the CDCs. Sir, I support the Budget. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

5.16 pm

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker and thank you to the hon Member Ms Denise Phua. I expected a robust response to my speech; and indeed, Ms Denise Phua's comments are not surprising.

Let me start with a very straightforward preamble. When I called for a review of whether Mayors should be full-time, this was not a personal vendetta against the current Mayors or Mayors who have been full-time Mayors in the CDCs before. Neither was it an indictment against the programmes that are run by the CDCs. But having said that, it is helpful for us to take a look back at the evolution of the CDCs. I think Ms Denise Phua tried to do that but I do not think she provided a complete picture. I will attempt to do so.

When the CDCs were first formed in 1996/1997, the Mayors were not full-time; they were part-time. They became full-time appointments, to my understanding, after the General Elections in 2001. And that is because the trajectory of the Government thinking at that time was Government programmes, ComCare assistance, KiFAS, things which are done by MOE today, for example, would go through the CDCs. Selection of where childcare offices or childcare centres also came through the CDCs and the budget of the CDCs was proportionately increased. It is helpful to look at the Hansard of that era, specifically Committee of Supply (COS) 2002. The budget of the CDCs was increased from $19 million in 1997 to $153 million in 2001. So, you find the evolution of the CDCs, I think, best encapsulated by what Minister Vivian Balakrishnan said when he was Minister, MCYS, I believe, in 2010 or thereabouts. The Minister said all Government schemes go through the CDCs. This is what was said in Parliament, it is on the Hansard.

Is that the case today? A lot of roles have devolved. ComCare is primarily handled by the SSOs. Many other functions are now not in the hands of the CDCs anymore. And concomitantly, the budget of the CDCs has reduced significantly. So, I think the question which the hon Member Ms Denise Phua did not answer is: is it still viable for Mayors to be full-time? I would like to hear her reply to that.

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng: I have to say that I am probably the only full-time Mayor. That is because the Prime Minister feel that I am running the largest district here – 23 divisions. My fellow Mayors are all double hatting or triple hatting sometimes; and so I do not know whether you consider them full-time Mayors or not. But I do know that they only get one pay. So, I think that is the current situation. So, I do not know whether you consider them full-time or part-time. But I am probably guilty of being the only full-time Mayor and I take it that that is why I do some national initiative projects as well. And other Mayors, please feel free to speak up.

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you. Yes, it will be helpful to hear from the other Mayors. I think my question is certainly put out there already. It is for the Government now to determine the approach that they want to take in terms of whether Mayors should be a full-time or a part-time appointment given the comments I have made about the scope of responsibility. I have made my point and it is now really in the Government's hands.

I would also like to make a point about this issue that the hon Member Denise Phua made about public mindshare. This has been a problem, in my view, for the longest time. It is not just something recently that has cropped up. I will quote the Hansard.

This is again from the 2002 COS debates. Mayor Zainal Abidin Rasheed, the predecessor in my constituency of Eunos, was the Mayor of Northeast CDC. And these are his verbatim remarks at that debate: "Recently, Radio 93.8 started a series of programmes where they interviewed Mayors and staff of the CDCs to explain and to talk about the CDCs. To my surprise, most of those who were interviewed by Radio 93.8 claimed that they were not aware of what the CDC was all about and they do not even know who their Mayors were despite the fact that we have carried out quite a number of activities." And, of course, it goes on.

I think the point here is nobody is questioning the projects that the CDC runs. The question is: is it ostensibly possible that these projects also could be carried out with charities, some of whom have a huge footprint not dissimilar to very worthy initiatives that the hon Member Ms Denise Phua herself helms, like the Purple Parade. So, I think that there is a very valid question as to the roles and functions of the CDCs. And beyond the points that I have made in my speech, I thank the hon Member Ms Denise Phua for her clarifications.

Mr Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.

Ms Carrie Tan: I would just like to share my inputs to address Mr Pritam Singh's last question about whether the work can be undertaken by charities.

Coming from being the founder of charity, I think the capacity amongst the charity sector is limited. As far as I know from my experience, many charities want to focus their manpower and resourcing on the work of working, hand-holding, serving and supporting families. And I think, at least from my experience, the value of the CDCs to the charity sector has been that it is able to carry out the work of consolidating, aggregating, reaching out to partners to pool more resources and support for the charities and the work that they do as well. So, this is the part that I find, as a charity member in society, we do benefit greatly from the CDCs' amalgamation of resources from bigger corporations who are willing to give to the sector, but would like to be part of a bigger movement that then disseminates these resources out to the various charities who want to focus our resources on doing the work of supporting the communities directly.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

5.24 pm

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, in line with the theme of the Budget Statement, I would like to examine four areas in which we can work together towards emerging in a stronger condition than we were in before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

First, I wish to address how we view and approach competition.

Competition is a ubiquitous aspect of life in Singapore. In school, our children compete for grades, awards and places in top schools. Even in co-curricular activities, they compete for a spot on the school team to improve their chances of entering Secondary school via the Direct School Admission (DSA) scheme. We even grew a billion-dollar industry in the form of tuition centres, which have fuelled the competitive dynamic that is part of our education system.

Keen competition continues after finishing school. Employees compete with each other for raises and promotions or enterprises engage in the survival of the fittest.

Competition in itself is not bad. It can draw out the best in each person and each firm. However, when competition starts taking negative edge, we need to re-examine our priorities.

As we are told time and again, Singapore is a small and vulnerable country which needs to stay relevant and competitive. Therefore, we must ensure that our competitive spirits are directed towards the right targets and adopt a more cooperative mindset with our fellow Singaporeans. For example, Singaporeans at the workplace could orient themselves more towards looking out for each other and helping each other succeed. This is how professionals and workers from other countries instinctively operate, even when they are working here. We should not see our fellow Singaporeans as competition for promotions but as partners we can cooperate with to improve the products and services of our company's, thereby improving our company's earnings and contributing to our bonuses.

Government-linked companies or GLCs could look at more ways to collaborate with the SMEs in ventures overseas and form local consortiums with them, thus increasing Singapore's competitive edge.

Mr Speaker, the pandemic support measures have helped many low-income families. However, we must not forget the plight of the middle income who make up a growing proportion of our population. Middle income families often find themselves squeezed from both ends. Their incomes render them ineligible for many Government benefits. Yet, they still have to cope with high costs like their home mortgage, children's education and aged parents' medical fees. The increase in petrol duties adds to this squeeze and so will the future hike in GST. All this leaves them with little buffer against the vicissitudes of life. An unexpected shock, like a family medical emergency, can throw them into financial distress.

We need to provide more help to this group. To be clear, I am not calling for universal handouts. Assistance should still be targeted but I hope to see more flexibility when it comes to assessing the eligibility of applicants for schemes, like the COVID-19 Recovery Grant. Individuals who narrowly miss eligibility requirements or have circumstances that deserve special consideration should not be denied assistance. Such flexibility should be exercised at the first instance based on their merits. The Government agencies should not wait for these individuals to pluck up the courage to send in appeals before they can get the help they need.

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced us all to re-examine what constitutes an essential job. Some supposedly higher skilled jobs have turned out to be less critical than their lower skilled counterparts. This was amply demonstrated during the just concluded Australian Open Tennis tournament, which was held in Melbourne under the shadow of the pandemic. To minimise the spread of viruses, all human line judges were replaced with Hawkeye, an electronic line judging system. Umpires are still featured, but their role seems to be relegated to calling the score, not adjudicating line disputes. It remains to be seen when they too will be made redundant. On the bright side, ball kids face far brighter prospects since it is harder to build a robot which can run, retrieve and throw balls on cue. Naturally, to gear up my kids to be future-ready, I signed them up to be ball kids at the ATP 250 Singapore Tennis Open which is taking place this weekend in the Singapore Sports Hub. This tournament also uses electronic line judges.

Automation is by no means limited to the tennis court. Many other highly skilled jobs are either being taken over by machines or offshored to lower cost locations. According to the OECD, 14% of jobs in rich countries are highly automatable while the further a 32% are likely to change because of because many of their routine tasks can be automated. Robo advisors are giving active fund managers a run for their money; X-rays can be read by radiologist in India; and mobile app development can be outsourced to developers in Vietnam and Romania.

The pandemic has showed us that many so-called "3D" jobs – dirty, dangerous or difficult – have turned out to be more essential than some white collar jobs. We need to accord sufficient recognition to workers manning these positions. I am glad that nurses and healthcare workers are getting a much-deserved raise, but let us not forget our repairmen, refuse collectors and delivery drivers. These everyday heroes, kept our country running when we were all locked down at home. I understand that even here in Parliament House, workers were here until late last night to fix a broken toilet pipe.

[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]

But with the restrictions in the supply of foreign workers and the reluctance of many locals to take up 3D jobs, the demand for workers in these occupations often exceeds their supply. Based on the law of supply and demand, these workers' wages should naturally rise to reach a higher equilibrium price. In practice, however, many of their wages still remain painfully low. This is in part because of the structure of our industries and in part because our society does not esteem them highly enough. This is a market failure. The state needs to intervene to ensure that these workers' earnings increase to match the value they bring to society.

In 2012, the Government introduced the Progressive Wage Model, or PWM, to raise the wages of low-wage workers. Today, almost a decade later, the PWM still covers only 15% of workers in the lowest quintile of income earners and only from three industry sectors: security, cleaning and landscaping. According to MOM, there are a residual 100,000 workers in other sectors who still earn less than $1,300 a month.

The NTUC has announced plans to roll out the PWM to six more sectors. It is yet unclear how and when all these 100,000 workers will be covered. The Deputy Prime Minister said in his Budget Statement that the Government's aspiration is for every sector of the economy to have some form of progressive wages, echoing NTUC's call for a universal PWM. Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam has termed the PWM a "minimum wage plus".

It is not my objective today to debate the merits or demerits of the PWM vis-a-vis the national minimum wage. I think the parties have stated their position on this issue. The Workers' Party (WP) has called for a national minimum wage, first set at $1,300 in take-home pay per month; and the Government and NTUC had explained why they have chosen the path of the PWM while pointing out that they are not ideologically opposed to the minimum wage.

I accept that the Government is heavily invested in the PWM. My goal today is to discuss how the PWM framework can be improved so that we can achieve our common goal.

Whether Singapore adopts the PWM, a universal PWM, a national minimum wage or a minimum wage plus, I believe the common goal of everyone in this House is the same: to raise the wages of all our low-wage workers and ensure they earn a living wage that can support their families in what is one of the most expensive cities in the world.

A household budget study by researchers from NTU and NUS in 2019, found that to meet basic standards of living in Singapore, a single elderly household needs $1,379 per month while an elderly couple needs $2,351 per month. According to the MTI, the Average Household Expenditure for Basic Needs, or AHEBN, for a four-person household was estimated to be about $1,300 a month in 2017. AHEBN is an estimate of the average that households spend on essential needs such as food, clothing and shelter every month. This is how the WP derived our figure for a national minimum wage, which will rise with the AHEBN.

However, the PWM's goals are not limited to setting a basic minimum wage. This is something which the Government has emphasised as the very reason why it favours the PWM over a national minimum wage. The PWM also seeks to chart out skills ladders and career progression for workers. NTUC Deputy Secretary-General Koh Poh Koon shared plans to roll out the PWM to six more sectors in the next two to three years. These sectors include strata management and solar technology, both of which do not typically employ low-wage workers. I find this rather puzzling. Why are we venturing into PWM for these industries when there are still so many more low-wage workers who lack a basic wage floor to protect them?

The basic principle of the PWM is that higher wages must be a result of improvements in productivity, not Government fiat. Higher productivity can be achieved by upgrading workers skills through training. With a better skilled and more productive workforce, firms will be able to pay their workers better while still remaining profitable. This sounds great in theory, but is less straightforward in practice.

First, the training element of the PWM may be well intentioned, but training can improve productivity only to a limit. In many low-wage occupations, there is a skill ceiling due to the manual nature of their work. How many more HDB blocks can a conservancy worker sweep if we send him for more training? After completing basic training, further training will reap diminishing returns. Worse, it could cost the firms money and lost work hours with marginal or no improvements in productivity. Even as the Government subsidises much of the training and absentee payroll, it does not mean the training is free because it is still borne by taxpayers.

Second, providing pathways for career progression for our low-wage workers is also a worthy goal to strive for. However, it has limited utility for many low-wage workers. How many elderly cleaners are striving to be promoted to supervisors, where they have to manage a team and churn out monthly reports for management? For most of them, their priority is first and foremost to earn enough to provide for their families.

And third, the PWM is designed to be rolled out to specific industries through licensing conditions set by the respective lead sector agencies: NEA for the cleaning sector, Police Licensing & Regulatory Department, or PLRD, for security agencies and NParks for the landscaping industry. These lead sector agencies require that firms implement the PWM before they are issued operating licenses. If an industry does not currently have any licensing conditions, the relevant lead sector agency will need to introduce a licensing requirement before implementing the PWM. This will be the case for the proposed roll-out of PWM to the retail sector, which currently has no licensing requirements.

This two-step process will be cumbersome for both the Government agencies and the firms involved. It would surely introduce more red tape and dent productivity, leading to more overheads to firms, which may cost them far more than just what a wage hike may cause them. It may cause them far more than just a wage hike to meet the basic minimum wage.

I am glad to hear that the NTUC is looking at a vocational PWM and I look forward to more details of how this will be implemented.

Someone on Reddit once remarked that the PWM is like a Rube Goldberg machine which tries to solve too many things at once, without solving anything well. This may be a rather harsh critique of the PWM and I know there are many officials who are working very hard to make the PWM work. However, I believe there needs to be a fundamental re-ordering of the PWM framework so that it can be rolled out faster, for the benefit of more of our low wage workers.

The current pace of rollout of the PWM is much too slow. At this rate, it will be another decade or more before all low-wage workers are on the PWM. What is more, we have to-date only picked the low-hanging fruit. It will be far harder to roll out the PWM, particularly in its current form, to the remaining industries and occupations.

I believe it will be less bureaucratically complex and more efficient to first set a basic wage floor for specific industry sectors, and expand the list of sectors quickly so that we can eventually cover all our local workers. The other aspects of PWM like training requirements and career progression ladders can still be brought in, but later.

Given the urgency of the problem that remains to be addressed – 100,000 employed and self-employed workers earning less than $1,300 a month – we need to pick our battles more carefully and focus on what will move the needle the most and the quickest for our low-wage workers. Since the PWM is a "minimum wage plus", we should focus on implementing the "minimum wage" portion of the PWM across all industry sectors as soon as possible, then roll out the "plus" portion only later where practical.

I acknowledge that the pandemic period is not a good time to impose wage increases across a large swath of industries. To ease the transition for all employers, the Workfare Income Supplement can be used to temporarily top up wages to the minimum wage, and these can be eased off as the economy recovers, with employers taking over. Dr Koh Poh Koon said yesterday that the Wage Credit Scheme (WCS) could be used for this same purpose.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, rolling out a basic wage floor more widely and quickly will not only improve the welfare of thousands of our lowest paid compatriots and their families. It can also have positive effects on our economic recovery. The lower income have a higher marginal propensity to spend because they need to meet their basic needs, so putting more cash in their hands will have a multiplier effect on our GDP growth. Higher wages for these occupations will encourage more people to enter the workforce and ease the labour crunch in many essential industries. Those already in the workforce will be more motivated at work, resulting in improved personal productivity and lower turnover and retraining costs for companies. It will be a win-win-win for workers, employers and our economy.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, our people have demonstrated great resilience during this pandemic. However, in order to emerge stronger together from this economic downturn, we need to jettison some legacies that have lost their relevance in today's world, and be willing to adopt new paradigms to bring our country forward. Madam, I support the Budget.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

5.42 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for a compassionate yet pragmatic and visionary Budget. Allow me to focus on two pillars of our nation – our seniors and the construction industry.

First, our seniors. Among those whose jobs are affected by the pandemic, our seniors are among the hardest hit group. I am glad to note that this Budget continues to recognise the importance of promoting senior employability. More than $200 million will be allocated for the Senior Worker Early Adopter Grant and the Part-Time Re-employment Grant. There will be increased funding to redesign jobs and leverage on technology to develop senior-friendly workplaces. This comes on top of the raising of the Retirement Age and Re-employment Age to 63 and 69 respectively from July 2022. All this is good news for older workers who wish to continue in employment.

While technology and financial incentives go a long way to encourage companies to employ seniors, a change in mindset of both employees and employers is required to create truly senior-conducive workplaces. Research consistently indicates bias against older workers in Singapore, with impaired health and reduced cognitive abilities among top concerns. This negative labelling of seniors can impact their employability.

Concerns about employing seniors can be overcome by redesigning jobs and the physical workplace. But this is something that companies find cumbersome to do. One employer asked me, "Why review my workplace practices and design, when I can simply hire someone younger?" With this mindset, employers would miss out on the wealth of experience and problem-solving capacities of older workers. We are an ageing society. Workplaces must adapt, or we will face a labour crunch soon.

Seniors must at the same time continue to be willing to adapt and persevere despite the challenges that they may face at work. It is not uncommon for seniors who, despite trying their best, remain self-deprecating of their potential and mistakenly believe that technology is for the young. Fear of the uncertainty is part of human instincts. But senior workers too, must be optimistic and believe in themselves. We must continue our efforts to push for greater digital adoption amongst our seniors.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I agree with Deputy Prime Minister that we need to continue with the Jobs Support Scheme, or JSS, for the time being. This is because the withdrawal of the JSS will lead to increased unemployment in the near term. This will likely impact senior workers more. We need more direct assistance and matching from the Government to help workers, especially senior workers, to stay in their jobs.

Another major way to help on the employability front is to facilitate the creation of more micro jobs for seniors. Member Henry Kwek also spoke about this yesterday. I want to emphasise that many of these jobs can be in the community, including carers for other older, more frail seniors, medical escorts to accompany other seniors from hospital to home and vice versa and handyman works for repairs around the estate.

For instance, I see many senior residents at my MPS who have expressed interest to look for micro jobs near their homes because they have family commitments and cannot afford to travel far. For instance, Mrs Tan, a 63-year-old homemaker, has approached me to help her look for employment as she can spare a few hours when her grandchildren are in school. The Government can play a role to promote such micro jobs by offering integrated search and listing platforms to match the demand and supply based on location. The Government can also consider providing accreditation and training for persons who might want to take up micro jobs.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I move on to the construction industry. This is an important sector that help to build our comfortable homes and world-class infrastructure. The past year has been difficult for the sector. I note that this year's Budget did not mention additional support measures for the construction sector, beyond the JSS extension. Have we forgotten the people who toiled and sweat to build our infrastructure and for our beautiful HDB homes? Their work has been badly affected by COVID-19. I have a good number of residents who work in construction, either as workers or employers. We need to do more to help this sector cope with the immediate fall-out in three areas.

First, Mdm Deputy Speaker, we can do more on the manpower front. Though industry players are receiving help from the Government, many short-term challenges have not been addressed. Many firms with existing projects must cope with rising costs and labour shortage as a result of the pandemic.

Some foreign workers have returned home. Yet the new arrivals are tightly controlled. Newly arrived work permit and S Pass holders are required to complete a 14-Day Stay-Home Notice. Those who have recent travel histories to higher-risk countries must stay at a designated facility to undergo an additional seven days of testing. In total, they will be quarantined for as many as 21 days. Employers would have to pay for their accommodation and the swab test costs, which can add up to a significant amount. I urge the Government to consider providing subsidies as all these amount to increased labour costs and cost of contracts.

Housing the workers remains a challenge for some employers in construction. The Temporary Living Quarters scheme is slated to expire in end March 2021. However, some employers say that they are still struggling to obtain approval for building Construction Temporary Quarters or CTQ. Time is tight and the TLQ should be extended while these approvals are being worked on.

The foreign worker levy waiver and rebates were a lifeline for construction companies. Due to safe distancing measures, productivity at worksites have dropped tremendously. During this difficult period, can the Government consider reducing workers levies? We can reinstate levies when SMMs are removed.

For projects that are eligible for cost-sharing relief with contractual parties, can the Government look into expediting early settlement and payment to the contractors? The COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act introduced co-sharing of project prolongation costs for public sector construction contracts. This is supposed to help the contractors with their cash flow. How many claims were made, and how many have been processed?

Second, Mdm Deputy Speaker, we should consider giving some priority to our local construction companies for public projects. Yesterday, Member Patrick Tay called for tougher measures to strengthen the Singaporean Core workforce. Today, I would like to call for the Government agencies to build Singaporean Core companies.

COVID-19 is not the first pandemic, nor will it be the last, that will impact our borders. It is a stark reminder for us to improve our self-sufficiency. Local preference is relevant to our construction sector. We need to give our local construction firms opportunities to develop their own expertise and grow such that Singapore will not stagnate even in times of crisis.

A potential critique of this practice is that it undermines competitiveness. And that the winning tender might not provide the best value. Yet studies have shown that giving preference to local businesses can benefit the country's finances as a whole, even if it means spending a little more on the project itself. The local construction companies would purchase from local supply chains and service providers. This in turn creates an "economic multiplier" effect. Investments that circulate locally boosts economic activity, employment and tax revenue.

To ensure that policies which favour local companies are transparent and fair, the Government can establish certification programmes and make public a database of companies that qualify for the preference. Implementing specific definitions for local preference eligibility, establishing well-developed goals, clear tracking and reporting will help to ensure that the policies are effective. This ensures accountability and that projects are value for money.

Of course, in doing so, we should be mindful that there may be restrictions such as WTO or other international agreements of which we are a party to. But, if we put our minds together and work hard towards our goal, we should be able to find solutions to support our local contractors.

Thirdly and lastly, Mdm Deputy Speaker, as we cast our minds towards a post-COVID world, we must review our infrastructure needs accordingly. Rather than defer infrastructure projects, the Government should consider taking an expansionary approach, and press ahead with projects in the pipeline. This will in turn, create more employment, while ensuring that we are on track to adapt to post-COVID needs.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, I am impressed by how quickly we pushed through many planned initiatives over the past year in light of the pandemic. One year on, the economy and employment rate are showing signs of recovery. But we must not forget to review our support for those who are struggling to catch up. In my speech, I focused on seniors and the construction industry as examples. In times of difficulties, we must do what it takes to support them. I stand in support of the Budget.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Dr Koh Poh Koon.

5.52 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Koh Poh Koon): Mdm Deputy Speaker, thank you for obliging. The hon Member Mr Gerald Giam made a few references to my two speeches; one from last year and one yesterday about the PWM. So, I thought I am obliged to clarify some issues that he has brought up.

The first thing he asked was why we push for a PWM in strata management as well as solar technology sector. I have great sympathy for my brothers and sisters working in the strata management sector. As I said yesterday my speech, this is an outsourced sector. Many of them have seen wage stagnation because as each contract is renewed, there is some resetting of their wages and there is no career progression, even though in terms of absolute pay, it may not be at the lowest bottom end of the bottom 20. I have great sympathy for them. I think the nature of the industry behoves us to think about a PWM model where they can see career and wage progression. So, that is the reason why we are pushing for that.

And in essence from the first, when the Labour Movement first talk about PWM in 2012, actually the PWM construct, while is tightly linked to low wage workers, it was never construed as only for low-wage workers, because the whole idea of the four-wage ladders – wage tied to skills to productivity and career progression is applied to all jobs or job roles across the different parts of the industries.

The reason why we started with the lowest sector is because they are the ones that need the most help. They are our brothers and sisters who need the greatest uplift to catch up the rest of society. But beyond the lower wage sector, we want the concept and the idea of a PWM to be pervasive across all job roles so that everyone in the job can see progression in their career and no wage stagnation.

Mr Giam also talked about licensing requirement in diverse sectors at retail sector. I think that is a focus of the tripartite workgroup's discussion and we hope that we can land on something that can allow us to implement this, without the necessary agencies that may have a particular regulatory lever similar to other sectors that were implemented in the past. And hopefully, this can be a recommendation from the work group sometime in the later part of the year.

Mr Giam also actually rehashed some of the points I already made yesterday about uplifting wages immediately using the Workfare Income Supplement. And in fact, I am glad he agreed with my suggestion to consider the wage credit scheme as a form of transitional support. So, I hope that when we do so, we will get more support; and in that sense, if there were any wage increase that translates to consumer costs increase, I hope the Workers' Party Members can also help to convince consumers that they have to do their part as well.

What I do not understand is that in advocating for a sectoral wage floor across different sectors, how different is it from what we are already proposing for sectorial PWM, which starts with a sectoral wage floor anyway? And there is, in my mind, I thought there are some convergence there, in what he is suggesting and with what we are doing with the PWM sectorally. What the Member has not said, however, is how does what he proposed, whether it is a pervasive minimum wage can prevent disemployment?

I have a great fear, that if we were to push pervasive minimum wage that is beyond what the industry can bear, my brothers and sisters will suffer from this employment and we will see more unemployment out there. The Labour Movement always keeps saying this: that in pushing for too high a minimum wage, a minimum wage can become no wage. And I think this is something that we ought to bear in mind – the cure we are proposing cannot be worse than the disease itself.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker and I thank Dr Koh for the clarifications. I will address some of the points that he responded to. First, about strata management and solar technology sectors, and why he feels that it is important because of the wage stagnation.

I share his concerns about wage stagnation in any sector, not just the low-wage sectors. But my point was that, as important as it is to address the wage stagnation issue and provide career ladders for the different industries, why can we not just focus more first on the low-wage workers to ensure that all 100,000 low-wage workers who are not covered by the PWM now, are covered first. Why do we not work harder at that first, rather than venture into other things?

I am not saying that career progression is not good and I am not saying that it is not good to have increases in salaries beyond the minimum wage. But I think we need to really double down and focus on the low-wage workers first, to ensure that they are protected before we go into other areas.

I do not think we want to have a situation where perfect is the enemy of good. We want to make sure that we implement the good things first and then try and perfect it later.

The other point about the sectoral wage floor and the convergence he mentioned. Yes, indeed, there is some convergence between our proposals because the minimum wage is the first component of the PWM and it should continue to be that way. So, let us focus on that first component first before we go into career progression and other aspects.

He also mentioned about the concerns about unemployment that will be brought about by increases in wages. Yes, it is true that if we increase wages by too much, there could be unemployment. But let us look at the actual real-world examples. In the cleaning sector, the security sector and in landscaping, have we seen massive unemployment is the result of the implementation of the PWM? I do not think so. And I believe that if we implement a wage floor which is reasonable, and we have actually put out a number there – $1,300 a month – if we implement a wage floor which is reasonable, I do not think we will see massive unemployment. I think the effects of this wage increases will be minimal on many other industries.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Dr Koh.

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Madam, I think the Member refers to the cleaning sector. I think that is probably not quite accurate because actually that is already a PWM sector, which is why you do not see an increase in disemployment, because there is a wage ladder together with skills ladder.

And in his proposal now, he is talking about a sectorial wage floor, which in fact, is what sectoral PWM is all about. Are you still advocating for your universal minimum wage that WP wants? Or are you going with me now on my sectoral PWM with a minimum wage floor, sectorally? I am a little but confused there. Has the WP's position changed?

But I think what the Member must also remember in my previous Parliamentary speech on this topic, is that the minimum wage floor in a PWM is not a standalone because there is a Government top-up with a Workfare Income Supplement that brings the salary way beyond $1,300. In fact, most of them will hit closer to $2,000 or $2,300.

So, I think you need to take the whole context of what we have in place. Beyond the PWM, tThere is also the WIS component. And we have been talking about augmenting this yesterday in my speech. I hope the Member remembers my speech from yesterday.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Dr Koh is trying to understand whether or not we have changed our position on this minimum wage issue. We have not changed our position. Our position still remains that we should roll out a minimum wage first, to all low-wage workers who earn less than $1,300 a month. That is the position that we are still pushing for, but two things:

First is that we accept that we are not in Government, and the Government and the People's Action Party is in Government. The People's Action Party has decided to proceed with this PWM model. So, we are trying, in the interest of protecting our low-wage workers, to find a way that we can propose how you can start off with this minimum wage, and then you can do those other things like career progression and wage increases.

I am not digging in, just to say that, "Oh, I want to stick with my position and my position is right, your position is wrong". I think we are all working together to find out what is the best way to benefit our low-wage workers.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Dr Koh.

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Indeed, Madam, this is what we have been trying to do in this House: to make sure that we take care of our most vulnerable.

But I still do not understand. When we talk about sectoral wage floors, we are trying to make sure that the minimum wage floor by the sector is relevant to the particular industry, that job, and what the industry can bear, what the consumers are prepared to pay for the type of services so that that particular wage floor for the sector does not cause disemployment or unemployment in the sector.

If the Member's position is that we should set the appropriate wage floor so that we do not create disincentive for employment, then surely it cannot be one single wage floor across all sectors, all job types that can be relevant and absorbed by all different types of services and service bias.

I think this is why we propose that the advantage for PWM is that it is customised for a sector. It is a little bit more laborious maybe, but that makes sure that it is something the industry, businesses and consumers are prepared to bear.

I said yesterday that we are looking at the option of pushing up for vocational PWM so that it actually involves different job types, especially those in the bottom 20% of income earners across multiple sectors. And that hopefully will address the larger swath of workers who are in the lower wage group.

That is our strategy – we hope to cover as many of the low-hanging fruits and those who are in need, as the Member was pointing out. I hope by the end of this year, the tripartite work group will be able to come up with recommendations to push out occupational PWMs to cover the most vulnerable who are currently not covered by the mandatory PWM, sectorally.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: All right, Mr Gerald Giam, could you just clarify the point?

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Just the last point on the sectoral wage floor. We want to see a $1,300 minimum wage across all sectors eventually. As for the sectoral wage floor, we acknowledge that one way of rolling out this $1,300 is to implement $1,300 wage floor for each sector, going sector by sector. But it does not mean that we are saying that we should immediately start adjusting the different wages for the different sectors. That can be done in the PWM but let us get the minimum done first so that we can progress onto the next step.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

6.03 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, my daughter Ella started her Primary 1 journey last month. It has not been an easy transition for her. In her first week, she entered school every morning in tears. It was difficult saying goodbye to her at the gate.

But it was comforting for us to know that the teachers were there. I was peeping through the fence, as we, parents, often do, and I saw the teachers holding Ella's hand, offering her a tissue to wipe her tears and showering her with love during this difficult period.

I saw how this was not just about teaching, but it was a labour of love. Every morning, the principal and teachers were at the gate cheerfully saying good morning to the students as they arrived. We received phone calls from teachers updating us on Ella and we had Zoom calls with the teachers and other parents too. I thank the teachers for being there for our children, for providing much needed care and for their dedication. I thank them for being teachers.

Madam, many people have asked me why my eyes are so red and about my eye bags. In fact, Minister Indranee was asking me about this during our break earlier and she said that I now look like a mad dinosaur. I have been called many things, but the first time, a mad dinosaur. But it has been a difficult Primary 1 journey for me too – waking up so early every morning to send Ella to school. Sometimes, it feels like I have just fallen asleep and it is time to wake up.

I guess I had a glimpse of what it is like being a teacher, waking up so early every morning. But a glimpse also because I am sure teachers wake up much earlier than me.

It has been said before, but it is not said enough: teachers have a tough job; and I thank them again for their loving role in nurturing our next generation.

We have emerged stronger from this pandemic also because of our teachers. During the pandemic and the circuit breaker, they work doubly hard, teaching physically in classrooms and virtually. They were out there while we kept ourselves safe at home. There are things we can and should do to make their job a little better and this is what I would discuss today.

So, Madam, let me also start by thanking MOE for its reforms in recent years, which have made education a more nurturing experience.

We have stopped reminding students of how they are ranked in both class and level. We have stopped grouping them into classes based on academic abilities. We have stopped comparing students to their peers when grading the PSLE.

The message to students has been clear: focus on your own learning; do not be distracted by how others are doing.

As then Education Minister Ong Ye Kung put it, I quote, "Learning is not a competition, but a self-discipline you need to master for life."

I agree. And indeed, we have done a lot to help our students get rid of the distractions and focus on their own learning. But I feel we have not done enough for our teachers. It seems contradictory to me that teachers tell their students that students are no longer ranked and compared relative to their peers while they themselves are ranked and compared relative to other teachers.

Madam, in the past six months, I have spent time listening to what teachers have to say.

The Singapore Teachers' Union surveyed about 1,200 teachers and organised a series of closed-door dialogues with teachers of all levels who spoke candidly about their experiences. I had the privilege to hear some of their conversations and experiences.

I left with a renewed appreciation for the genuine passion our teachers have for teaching. The feedback that the teachers raised at these sessions were ultimately because they wanted to be better teachers for their students.

But I also left with some worry. Large numbers of them expressed concerns about their appraisal system. Over 80% of teachers and 70% of Reporting Officers, or ROs, agreed that ranking is not the best way to appraise all job holders.

Today, I will share four proposals to tweak and refine the appraisal system. These proposals reflect concerns on the ground, based on survey data by the union and personal anecdotes. I am not proposing to throw the baby out with the bath water. I am suggesting that we make the appraisal system more standardised, transparent, fair and formative. This will better support our teachers to do their best work.

Let me take this opportunity to thank all civil servants for their essential work. My speech is about teachers because each of them influences tens and hundreds and thousands of young minds in their daily work. But it does not stop here. Starting from teachers, my hope is that the change in the appraisal system would flow through to the rest of the Public Service.

My first proposal is to standardise the appraisal process and require schools to follow it. While about half of the teachers surveyed felt there was some objectivity in the system, about three quarters of teachers surveyed agreed that appraisals should be based on standardised criteria.

Currently, teachers go through a two-step appraisal process. First, the teacher's RO assesses the teacher. Second, the RO takes this assessment to a Ranking Panel of senior staff members. The Ranking Panel then decides on the rank and grades of teachers in the school. How do all these people decide on what a teacher really deserves? As MOE has shared, it provides guidelines and conducts training to advise on best practices.

But the stories shared by teachers reveal that current guidelines and training are not robust enough to ensure that the appraisal is standardised.

At the first stage of assessment by a RO, teachers report that subjective and irrelevant considerations are sometimes taken into account in the assessment. One teacher said that some ROs prefer yes-men, I quote, "If you are one who asks questions and give alternate suggestions, you are deemed to be uncooperative and calculating". Another teacher said that their RO favours staff who are his friends or used to work with him in other schools. It should worry us that some teachers feel this way.

Madam, even if the RO thinks that a teacher is good and the teacher meets or exceeds his or her targets, this does not mean that the teacher will get a good grade. They have to fight for the teacher at the Ranking Panel.

Many ROs, themselves, feel frustrated by the Ranking Panel. More than half of the ROs said that members of the Ranking Panel have an unequal say. They flag the roles of personalities and politics.

One RO said that those on the panel tend to play up their own teachers while criticising others so that they themselves are ranked as being effective. Another RO fretted about retaliation, saying that to speak up for unfairly ranked teachers means to risk, I quote, "suffering the same fate". Again, we should be concerned that some ROs feel this way.

Our teachers are doing their best for the students and many do want to receive constructive feedback so that they can take steps to improve.

However, the current process means that the outcome may not simply be a reflection of a teacher's performance and irrelevant considerations come into the picture.

I understand the challenges of evaluating a teacher's work. I also understand that MOE has frameworks in place, such as Key Result Areas for each job level describing key competencies and qualities to achieve.

But there is more that we can do to standardise the process. First, MOE can provide greater clarity to its guidelines and provide more granularity. For example, Key Result Areas currently tell teachers what "good" looks like.

Just like the detailed marking rubrics used for students, these Key Result Areas should be broken down by grade so that teachers know what specific standards are required to achieve an A, B, C and so on. Clearer appraisal standards given to ROs and Ranking Panels make it harder for subjective and irrelevant considerations to enter into decision-making.

Second, MOE should formalise its guidelines on teacher appraisal as requirements. Good guidelines are not so useful if they can be ignored or circumvented. Teachers and ROs alike said that the appraisal process varies sharply from school to school.

Some schools have robust and objective processes in place. Other schools may have weaker processes which allow for more subjectivity.

MOE has said that its policy on teacher appraisal seeks to balance between consistency across schools and discretionary judgement by the schools. The balance is currently tilted towards discretionary judgement. These stricter standards will move us towards consistency, limit biases and emphasise the performance of teachers.

This is not just about what I think is right. It is what the vast majority of teachers think is right. Again, about three quarters of teachers surveyed agreed that appraisals should be based on standardised criteria.

My second proposal is that MOE enforces a clearer and more consistent feedback policy for performance appraisals. Almost 80% of teachers surveyed did not feel that the process of ranking has been made transparent them. Teachers do not know how to improve if they do not understand how and why they got their grade. Transparency is crucial.

Currently, the feedback policy that schools must follow when conducting their annual appraisal exercise are merely guidelines. These guidelines may not have been successful in helping teachers understand the ranking process.

When we spoke to teachers to understand why they see the process as opaque, two main reasons cropped up.

The first reason is because information was not proactively offered to some of them. One teacher said, I quote, "The grades were never explained to me for the years I joined service".

The second reason is that even when some teachers asked about the process, they are given no explanation. One teacher sought to understand why they received that grade, but their RO said that there was no way to discuss the performance grade.

There are many more stories like these. How can anyone do better if they do not know what they are doing wrong? I think we can all empathise with how frustrating it must be to be in a situation like this.

Again, there is more we can do. MOE can implement a standard procedure for how schools respond when teachers request feedback and clarifications about their grade.

Second, this standard procedure needs to be enforced. As the data shows, a large majority of teachers currently see the appraisal exercise as lacking in transparency. We must make proper communication mandatory and enforce this.

Third and finally, we can work with the teachers to strengthen MOE's communication policies. We can implement a whistleblowing mechanism for teachers to use when their schools are failing to abide by MOE's communication policies on appraisal. Of course, this mechanism must include measures to protect teachers from retaliation within their schools.

Together, these measures will foster a more transparent system where our teachers will always know how to do better, and this means a better education system for our children.

Third, I propose that we remove the quota for each grade. This means a teacher's grade will no longer be affected by the limited number of As, Bs, Cs and Ds.

Close to 80% of teachers surveyed strongly agreed with this proposal. We can see how the quota system can distort incentives. Let me explain this from two directions.

At the very top, each school can only give out a very small percentage of As and Bs every year. Let us call this the "good quota". This means it is not enough to be a terrific teacher; you have to be more terrific than everyone else.

The good quota rewards you for being a big fish in a small pond. However, it is a disincentive for being in a school where there are people better than you, whom you can learn from.

The quota also hurts those at the bottom. Five percent of each school’s teachers must be graded C-, D or E. Let us call this the "bad quota". This means that even if you are a good teacher in a school over-populated with super good teachers, the quota may still force you to receive a terrible grade. Again, the system discourages you from surrounding yourself with the best of the best.

The quota system may also be applied in ways unrelated to a teacher’s performance. One teacher said that some department heads agreed to spread out the bad quota across departments by "pre-selecting" a few teachers from each department to get bad grades and then fulfilling the prophecy by assigning unimportant tasks to these teachers.

The bad quota would not be so painful if the bad grades were, in fact, not that bad. Indeed, MOE has said the C- grade is not an adverse grade. But the reality is that those receiving C- grades and below, face a host of punitive measures, including ineligibility for promotion for three years and ineligibility for Professional Development Leave.

Minister Lawrence Wong has said that schools have flexibility for assigning grades. However, in practice, virtually all schools had teachers with C-, D or E grades, as Minister later shared. This may be because of the additional paperwork, scrutiny and justifications needed to exercise that flexibility.

I propose we remove the quotas. Let schools assign grades based on a standardised process, as I proposed earlier.

Over 80% of teachers surveyed supported the removal of the quota. The risk of fiscal imprudence is limited, as each school is given a fixed quantum of monies for performance bonuses.

Standardising the process as well as the existing practice of having a Cluster Superintendent advise each Ranking Panel are both powerful checks to guard against grade inflation.

MOE would not be alone in this shift. Some of the most successful companies in the world have dropped relative ranking and moved towards more flexible performance management systems. Amazon announced in 2016 that it would drop its stack ranking system. Even General Electric, the American conglomerate where stack ranking was popularised in the 1980s, has dropped it. Its current CEO said he prefers "reviews that candidly tell an employee where they are not measuring up and what they need to do to improve, without rigidly adhering to certain percentages". General Electric has shifted to a system that emphasises continuous dialogue and shared accountability.

I also propose that we remove the punitive measures for the C- grade. Seventy-five percent of teachers surveyed agreed with this.

Performance management should be formative, not punitive. Teachers who have struggled should not be denied the full resources to grow or the full prospect of being rewarded. Three years with 0% chance of promotion is enough to make anyone lose interest in their profession. Why would we disincentivise hard work like that?

What I hope for is that our teachers spend more time improving their own performance and aspire to become better teachers, instead of spending time worrying about how they are compared to others.

Madam, I am not the first Member of Parliment to speak on this. This has been a long fight by Member of Parliament Denise Phua and former Members of Parliament Zainal Sapari and Intan Mokhtar. Dr Intan said previously that our "appraisal system is quite summative" and spoke about the need for a more formative approach to the appraisal. Member of Parliament Denise spoke about the negative aspects of forced ranking, speaking of instances when employees get pushed up in terms of their ranking because of very vocal supervisors who were able to speak up for them at ranking sessions.

In the last few months, I have heard these exact concerns surfaced repeatedly by our teachers.

Mr Sapari, a veteran in the education service, first as a teacher, then a school principal, then a cluster superintendent. He asked for the forced ranking system to be abolished, and instead adopt a criteria-based approach for ranking.

Mr Sapari, Dr Intan and Ms Phua have been speaking about this since 2018. In a previous debate, Ms Phua said, "to run a race whereby only a few win the trophy might be a race that, I think, the Minister has been asking for us not to run. We should run races where as many as possible can make it to the finish line, and as many as possible can meet a good or great performance standard”. We all want what Ms Denise Phua is calling for but it is simply not possible under our current appraisal system.

Let me end with a quote as always, "A teacher plants the seeds of knowledge, sprinkles them with love, and patiently nurtures their growth to produce tomorrow's dreams". Sir, as teachers work hard to create a nurturing environment for our children, let us also create a nurturing environment for them.

Let us make our appraisal system more standardised, transparent, fair and formative. The surveys show that majority of teachers support this call.

But Madam, I know our performance management system of stack ranking is a sacred cow. We have used this system for decades. But for once, I am not asking for a scared cow to be slaughtered. As a vegetarian, I very much prefer that. I am asking for us to look after this sacred cow better and for our appraisal system again to be more standardised, transparent, fair and formative. With a strong, engaged and empowered teaching workforce, we will continue to emerge stronger. [Applause.]

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.

6.21 pm

Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Budget. Twenty-twenty was a tough and disruptive year, with the pandemic adding complexity to our lives, our livelihoods and our norms. Thus, I am grateful for the relief and assistance provided by the Government to cushion the impact of COVID-19.

This year, while the fight against COVID-19 continues and we know it is far from over, we are in a better position to emerge stronger together.

I move for us to consider, or rather reconsider, some of the important lessons learnt.

The COVID-19 situation has surfaced one pertinent issue that has always been stigmatised – mental health. After my Adjournment Motion last year, I received several emails. Some complained about working from home and the pressures that they face. But coincidentally, it was during the annual ranking exercise and many shared the pressure that they faced and they have to perform.

The fast-paced and highly competitive nature of our meritocratic system produce the best results globally, but it also means our workers face immense stress.

Some highlighted the toxicity and the dog-eat-dog atmosphere. Others felt the pressure to maintain a high grade whereas some are just trying to avoid a C-minus grade.

I was wondering why a C-minus grade? Because a C-minus grade may mean limited developmental opportunities and, perhaps, the end of their career.

As an educator, I believe that it is important that we continue to recognise our top performers but I also believe that those who did not do well, for whatever reasons, be given a chance to bounce back and emerge stronger.

I call for the Public Service to lead the way in tweaking the ranking exercise and move towards a balanced model of performance and development. And in that way, we holistically support the emotional and mental well-being in workplaces.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, another issue that was raised fervently by both young and old was the influence of social media. Instagram, TikTok, the latest app is Clubhouse, if you are not in that yet, and other social media platforms allow us to connect virtually, but it also means that nothing is private anymore.

Name-calling, rumour-spreading, deliberate online falsehoods are pertinent and challenging aspects of social media.

I have seen how both youths, as well as adults, are belittled online by their peers, and the damaging effects of cyberbullying. As a father myself, I am worried for our children, who might be vulnerable and having their mental well-being affected.

Collectively, mental health issues become more apparent and intervention is much needed in times like this. We need to make concrete and concerted efforts to support those with mental health issues beyond mere awareness and promote positive mental well-being.

I call again for these four strategies: first, to enhance mental health literacy as well as digital literacy programmes in our schools; second, to create more accessible touchpoints so that those who feel that they need help are able to do easily; third, including mental health screening as part of physical health screening and this should not be limited to just schools or workplaces only but also within the community so that our seniors may also receive help.

Lastly, to introduce time-outs at workplaces and in schools, so that those who are under stress may take the option to take a mental break, but such breaks are recorded and the next time one takes it, we know that they may have something that we need to help with. The strategies that I presented requires a whole-of-community effort.

Madam, mental health is not a life sentence. It is not something that one has to go through alone. There are ways for us to overcome these challenges. Early mitigation would certainly help, but we need to do it, together. We can only emerge stronger together as a united society, not only in terms of social and economic factors, but also in terms of our mental health.

Mdm Speaker, the collapse of certain sectors and the streamlining of the workforce brought upon by COVID-19, has exposed the inability of some of our fresh graduates to be agile in a volatile job environment.

Recently, I had a chat with a resident who is about to finish his Diploma in Aerospace Engineering. As the industry is deeply impacted by the pandemic, it is natural that he was feeling anxious. He expressed that he felt that he made the "wrong decision" when choosing the course. That should not be the case.

In my maiden speech, I highlighted that early specialisation constrains skillsets and limits opportunities. I emphasised the need for broad skills that can be generalised across other disciplines so that we can put our fresh graduates on a better footing and give them the confidence to apply their technical skills across other relevant sectors.

I call for MOE to continuously review pathways, to prepare our graduates with the agility to navigate through the varied and diversified workforce and discover their passion.

I also call to review how we can ease the progression from Secondary school to ITEs or the Polytechnics so that anyone who has a passion for a certain field, are allowed to seize it.

I have taught many students from the Polytechnic Foundation Programme (PFP) and many have done very well – in fact, they do even better than the ones who come in through the "O" levels system or route and I felt that because they entered the Polytechnic slightly earlier than the rest, it allows them the time and space not only to settle down but to chart their education journey better.

Finally, I hope that we continue to review the curriculum in IHLs so that it remains robust and most importantly relevant, working closely with the community and industry to ensure that every Singaporean is future-ready and remains employable.

Mdm Speaker, my final point is on the support for our healthcare workers. Without a doubt, our healthcare workers deserve all the accolades that come their way. I would like to thank them for their sacrifice and hard work and hope that the proposed increase in salary laid out in the Budget will spur them even further.

But we know it is not all about money. Nursing is inherently a very demanding profession and entails long hours and overnight schedules. Part of the job includes dealing with angry, mostly frustrated patients and family members.

We must continue to provide them with the best support possible. From ensuring work-life balance to enhancing their career pathways, to continually provide opportunities for them to develop and gain expertise.

But above all, it is protecting them against the abuse and harassment that they face in conducting their daily duties. The number of abuse and harassment cases increased from 1,080 in 2018 to 1,300 last year. Over the same period, the number of such cases involving on duty public healthcare workers that were reported to the Police under the Protection of Harassment Act increased from 40 to 58. Therefore, I call for us to review the processes to enhance the support and protection of our healthcare workers. Mdm Deputy Speaker, please allow me to end my speech in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I support the Budget that was presented last week.

As our economy recovers from the impact of COVID-19, other aspects of our lives will also begin to show signs of recovery. However, our battle against COVID-19 is not over yet.

As we rise to combat this pandemic, I would like to highlight three important aspects.

First, the importance of taking care of our mental health.

I would like to recommend four strategies that can help us pay more attention to mental health together.

First, make mental health education and digital literacy programmes compulsory in schools.

Second, create access for those suffering from mental issues to seek immediate help.

Third, introduce mental health screening in the current physical health checks, and lastly, introduce "time-out" for students and workers who are suffering from stress or mental issues.

Besides mental health, I also touched on diversifying pathways in education.

With the pandemic in our midst, many of our students are concerned about their future job prospects.

I would like to highlight the need for educational institutions to offer skills that can be or will be practised in all fields of work.

It will make our graduates more competitive as well as provide better confidence and opportunities to obtain employment in the future.

Lastly is the support system for healthcare sector employees. We are proud that our nurses understand their professional roles and continue to serve with excellence. We thank them for their sacrifices and hard work.

I welcome the plan to increase the salaries of workers in the healthcare sectors as stated in this Budget. However, besides financial support, attention should also be given in terms of expanding career paths, enlarging spaces and providing opportunities to upskill.

The final, and to me, the most important point is about giving them protection from the pressures and harassment that they may face when carrying out their duties.

I would like to assure the community that PAP Members of Parliament will continue to look after and care about all groups, in a holistic and comprehensive manner.

In my recent Facebook post about the launch of M3 at Jalan Besar, I quoted the Malay proverb uttered by the Prime Minister in 2018, "Tied up like a bunch of betel leaves, clustered like a bunch of lemongrass”

This year's Budget provides support to all segments of society. It is only when we Stay United and help one another that we will be able to become a Community of Success and Emerge Stronger together.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Parliamentary Secretary Mr Eric Chua.

6.35 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth and Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Eric Chua): Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Budget for the upcoming fiscal year is a continuation of the Government's promise to secure lives and livelihoods to outlast the pandemic. It also takes a longer view of building a sustainable home for our future generations.

While I applaud our bid to support businesses, workers and families in a more targeted fashion, I would like to sound the alarm on two issues. First, on our youth's state of mental well-being, particularly against the backdrop of COVID-19. Second, on how we could take better care of a smaller but no less important segment of our society, that is, our differently abled youth.

First, on youth mental well-being. The 2016 Singapore Mental Health study found that one in seven persons "has experienced a mood, anxiety or alcohol user disorder in his or her lifetime." This was a marked increase from the same study conducted in 2010, where one in eight persons was found to have suffered from some form of mental disorder. Also, noteworthy in the 2016 study was the finding that young people stood out as a demographic group more vulnerable to mental disorders. And the same survey also found that a large majority, in fact, 78% of people with mental illness did not seek help.

Stigma could have driven them away from seeking help. As many as seven in 10 think that persons with mental health conditions experience discrimination in their daily lives, according to the 2017 NCSS study on attitudes towards persons with mental health conditions in Singapore. Overall, there is still a lack of understanding of mental health conditions, with one in three persons expressing the view that mental health conditions stem from a lack of self-discipline or will power. Two in 10 felt that persons with mental health conditions should not be given any responsibility, while only a little over five in 10 were willing to work with a person with mental health conditions.

I think these statistics paint a stark picture of our views on people with mental health conditions. It is not enough for us just to have a conversation. We need to change the way we think about mental health if we have the well-being of our younger generations at heart, and more importantly, we need to act.

I recently met Courtney, a cheerful and confident 20-year-old lady; quite the high-achiever, or so it seems. As a teenager, Courtney had it all. She did well academically and landed a scholarship at a local institution. Things turned southward when Courtney started struggling to turn up in school, had difficulty socialising with her peers and ran into trouble with some of her teachers over flagging attendance.

Unknown to people around Courtney and even herself then, was the fact that this young life was, in fact, dealing with underlying mental health conditions. In fact, it did not even occur to her that it was why she had behaved differently from before. And what she said to herself at that point in time was very revealing, and I quote her, "I had strong thoughts that I am a terrible person. Everyone hates me. I don't deserve sympathy. I don't deserve to feel like I am suffering. I come from a loving family. How could I be someone who suffers?!"

Things were soon bad enough and Courtney was dropped from her scholarship. She chose to leave Singapore in 2017 to pursue a vocational programme in New Zealand. Courtney soldiered on in a foreign land, still not recognising her latent conditions. It all came crashing down again for her in November 2019, where medication she was on then exacerbated her severe mood swings. She regularly broke down, so much so that she could not carry on with public performances on several nights, which then, at that time, formed a big part of her assessment at vocational school. Finally, she sought help. She was diagnosed with depression and the lesser known Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder, or PMDD.

Looking back, Courtney's main regret was that no one around her and not even herself, had recognised that she had mental health issues. The lack of awareness and stigma makes it hard for the community to identify such issues, much less to respond. And it also makes it much harder for medical professionals to even get a chance to help. Courtney is blessed as her parents have stood by her all this while, supporting her even in her darkest hours. For Courtney, the key issue now is to help youngsters suffering silently from mental health issues to normalise help-seeking. And this work is even more urgent now, given the backdrop of a global pandemic.

COVID-19 reached our shores a year ago and has left the world grappling with the havoc it has wreaked on our lives and livelihoods. For our youth, whether they are coping with home-based learning, or transitioning from student to working adult life, the pandemic has only made already stressful rites of passage even more daunting. In fact, a National Youth Council survey found mental health a consistent challenge youths face during this pandemic.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I hope Members of this House will agree with me that the time to act is now. We need to do more to help our young ones struggling with mental health issues and we need to do so sooner rather than later.

I would next talk about a group of youths that is also close to my heart but for different reasons – our differently-abled youths. Before I proceed, I would like to declare that I am volunteering as a Board member with the Very Special Arts (VSA) Singapore, a charity that empowers youth with disabilities to pursue and realise their potential in the arts through continuing education.

After Deputy Prime Minister Heng's Budget speech last Tuesday, I reached out to a group of VSA parents. Many of them applaud the Inclusive Support Programme pilot, which will see the integrated provision of early intervention and early childhood services, so that we can better help children with developmental needs upstream.

However, their consensus was also that not only can we do more to better serve youths with disability, we can do it quite differently, especially when they complete formal education at 18. I would like to focus on three issues, namely, education, employment and housing.

Firstly, education. Raising a child is a lot of work. I know that from my own experience in the past eight months. But I can only imagine the financial, emotional and logistical demands that parents of differently abled children face. Roger, father of 19-year-old Floyd, a young man with autism, shared with me, and I quote, "Many fail to realise that it is more costly to raise a child with special needs. Often, in such families, only one parent works, because the other parent remains at home to continue teaching life skills to the child, until they are independent and socially appropriate."

Sally, mother to 19-year-old Amelia, a young woman with mild autism and dyslexia, shared with me that education for children with disabilities, can be expensive. The monthly fees for a Singapore Citizen to receive an education in a mainstream MOE Secondary school is $25. In contrast, the monthly fee for an autistic student at the Pathlight School is $250. When Amelia was going through school some years back, her monthly fee at Pathlight then, at that time, was $500. As Amelia has mild dyslexia, Sally had to fork out an additional $400 a month for programmes at the Dyslexia Association of Singapore. All in all, $900 a month for Amelia's education.

To be sure, the gap between fees for an education in mainstream versus special education, or SPED schools has closed over the years. There are financial assistance schemes available in both mainstream as well as SPED schools to ensure that no child is denied an education. However, could we do more to help, so these families are not unnecessarily burdened with financial strains, just because they have a differently abled child? And could we also allow them to utilise their SkillsFuture credits to pursue: (a) Continuing Education, such as those offered at the VSA, or (b) for speech-, occupational- or psycho-therapy, services which many will need, well into adulthood?

Second, on employment. I understand there is no one common international definition of disability but according to one UN report, 50%-70% of persons with disabilities of working age are unemployed, amongst industrialised countries. This translates into an employment rate of about 30%- 50%. According to MOM, 28.6% of resident persons with disabilities aged 15 to 64 are employed, while another 4.2% are active job seekers.

While there are certainly differences in how disability is defined in the various contexts, we can do more as an inclusive society to improve employment prospects for this group of people.

Parents I spoke to asked whether the Government can mandate a hiring quota for companies to recruit staff with disabilities, or to reward companies for inclusive hiring practices, just as how the Seoul Garden Group hired interns with disabilities through the SG Enable's school-to-work transition programme. Last year, I understand that 64 organisations were lauded at the President's Challenge for their inclusive hiring practices. While there are schemes such as the enabling employment credits and the job growth incentive that encourages employers to hire inclusively, we need this to become the norm.

At the workplace, we can do better by sensitising both employers and co-workers to be better equipped to work with differently abled individuals. We need to foster an inclusive mindset so mainstream employers and employees are mindful of both the sensibilities and sensitivities of working with their colleagues with disabilities. I understand this is something that SG Enable is already doing through its Open Door programme, to equip workplaces with skillsets to interact with individuals with disabilities, but we need more companies to be on board, so collectively, we can make our workplaces truly more inclusive.

Lastly, on housing. Many parents of children with disabilities worry endlessly about whether their children will be able to fend for themselves, long after they depart from this world. This is also what Diana, mother of 25-year-old Aaron – a young man diagnosed with autism – related to me. As many in the community work part-time, parents worry over whether their child will be able to afford a roof over their heads. In December last year, HDB announced the launch of Singapore's first assisted living flats for seniors. Could we not consider a similar housing option for this community, in addition to existing options such as adult disability homes?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, Roosevelt famously once said, "we cannot always build the future for our youth, but we can build our youth for the future". So build our youth, we must. Not just on hard skills that will allow them to compete with their peers in the global marketplace, but also on softer skills of resilience, inner strength and overall well-being. As we progress as a society in the grand course of history, let us all be kinder to one another, and not forget the vulnerable ones amongst us.

Notwithstanding the points I had raised above, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Budget.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Deputy Leader.

Debate resumed.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Saktindi.

6.49 pm

Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his fair, inclusive and sustainable Budget with a focus on supporting future growth.

Today, we are in the recovery stage because Singaporeans have worked very hard collectively to keep us safe and make the best of the pandemic. We must push ahead with the momentum so we do not let these efforts go to waste.

In my speech today, I will speak briefly about one key area to leverage on for further opportunities and change. I will share my concerns on immediate challenges pertaining to cost of living, particularly the petrol duty hike. Finally, I will round up my Budget response with my thoughts on our fiscal plans.

Manufacturing plays a key role in our post-COVID-19 economic strategy. The sector currently accounts for about 21%, or $106 billion of our total gross domestic product. It also hires around 12% of the workforce. COVID-19 has also propelled the demand for digital services and smart technology. This has led to an immense interest in smart manufacturing. The concept of digital twinning, in particular, has become increasingly valuable in transforming industrial operations, in an era where remote working is encouraged, and safe distancing required to limit the number of physically present workers. The digital twin captures insights on key operations at the manufacturing plant, allowing employees to respond by remotely reconfiguring processes and mitigating problems in real time. There is also heightened demand for collaborative robots in healthcare and manufacturing. Post-COVID-19, smart manufacturing is expected to be worth $220.4 billion by 2025.

The Government plans to grow our manufacturing sector by 50% over the next 10 years. The goal is to pave the way for "qualitative transformation", with advanced manufacturing forming a larger portion of the sector. This is good news. But two key problems continue to plague the sector over the years.

First, how can we accelerate digitalisation in more of our manufacturing companies beyond the existing grants and programmes. Maybe we can help more of our companies embrace digital twinning technology, raise productivity in our current environment now.

Second, retaining talent and speeding up capability transfer programmes. Companies also require talents to create, manage and maintain these technologies. According to the Singapore Manufacturing Federation, companies have problems hiring talent like robotics engineers, software developers and programmers. Retaining local talent is yet another challenge, so companies express a preference for retaining their S pass holders.

Undeniably, Singapore faces a labour crunch in the tech sector. This skills gap will require some years to shore up. In the meantime, the extension of the Capability Transfer Programme, or CTP, to 2024 to support foreign-to-local skills transfer is a viable support to grow the local pool of tech talents.

In my Adjournment Motion in 2019 on "Enhancing the role of the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices, or TAFEP, to tackle workplace and job discrimination", I spoke about localising jobs and legislation to address job discrimination. I had also proposed then, to leverage on the existing CTP and expand it to support the transfer of capabilities from foreign employees who are already in Singapore. With the extension of the CTP in this Budget, it has been projected that over 970 locals and more than 140 companies will benefit from 40 projects. I laud the efforts and the focus now on the CTP and hope we can increase the number of projects in manufacturing and include collaboration with MNCs, with the goal to facilitate more skills transfer and retention to build a core of highly skilled Singaporean workers.

Separately, I was actually hoping to hear more plans from the Deputy Prime Minister in his speech, to expand the Professional Conversion Programme, or PCP, to potentially shore up supply of labour into the tech sector. I hope MOM can share more in detail about the expanded PCP plans during the Committee of Supply. This is one area we need to focus on, the re-allocation of our young, middle-aged and senior workforce to sectors which are needed most and with speed, if possible, subject to existing constraints.

Mdm Speaker, I now move on to the more immediate concerns of the public – costs of living. Domestic inflation will eventually go up, as the global and domestic economy recovers and following that, global easing by central banks will eventually be removed. This is likely to be a global concern in the next few years if the COVID-19 situation improves. The inflation forecast for OECD countries is set to rise gradually to 1.8% by end of 2022. Domestically, inflation was negative during the pandemic, but projected to climb up to around 1.5% in 2025.

I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for not raising the GST this year, and there is the GST $6 billion Assurance Package announced last year, which will help to offset the GST increase for low-income households for up to 10 years, and five years for the middle income households.

As our economy is currently in the recovery stage, new jobs are created, Jobs Support Scheme continues for hard hit sectors, and there are real wage increases over time, especially with additional sectors identified for the Progressive Wage Model. So, Singaporeans need not be too worried about inflation for now. Mdm Deputy Speaker, in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, it is undeniable that there are concerns about the cost of living. With a hike in petrol duty announced during the Budget, there will be an increase of 10-15 cents per litre even though the impact on inflation is still minimal. The petrol component makes up 1.9% of the CPI basket, and with the rise in oil and energy prices as well as the recent hikes, it will likely only add 0.1 to 0.2% points to the headline inflation.

But the question is, why now? Deputy Prime Minister has stated that it is another important step towards cleaner transport and a car-lite society, and to discourage the use of vehicles with internal combustion engines.

In addition, we can view this increase as part of a series of moves to restructure duties over several years. There was an increase in petrol duties in 2015 and a restructuring of diesel duties in 2017 and 2019.

I agree that the current hike is a smaller increase compared to 2015. However, for the man on the street, it is seen as another price increase or increase in cost of living. Those who drive or ride motorcycles for their livelihood, like the delivery riders and ride-hailing drivers, are the hardest hit.

To ease the transition, the Government is giving a 15% road tax rebate to owners of private cars for one year, while motorcycle owners will get 60% road tax rebate

For those who use their vehicles to earn a living, the Government has provided additional offsets to ease the transition. Apart from the petrol tax rebates for those who depend on their vehicles for their livelihood, if they are from the lower and middle income groups, they will be supported by various assistance schemes and social transfers. These support measures are partly funded by our taxes, which includes petrol duties.

Apart from that, I am aware that this year’s Budget also provides the Budget 2021 Household Support Package consisting of GST vouchers, S&CC rebates, CDC vouchers and top-ups for school-going children, which will also go some way to ease the increase in cost of living.

To achieve long-term change and encourage motorists to go green, I urge the Government to help those affected like motorcycle owners to transit to electric or hybrid vehicles in the next five to 10 years.

Last year, Government relaxed rules on electric motorcycles, allowing high-powered motorbikes on the roads as part of efforts to encourage usage of cleaner vehicles. But as of March 2020, there are only two electric motorcycles registered in Singapore, out of a total motorcycle population of more than 140,000. The significantly higher cost of electric motorcycles compared to its petrol-powered equivalent is a deterrent. Electric motorcycles also have a long charging time of six to eight hours on average for a full charge. Our push towards EV charging stations, I hope, will also involve seamless ability to charge motorcycles quickly.

In Norway, which is known for being world leader on EV penetration and sales rate, the government incentivised EV ownership by removing their 25% sales tax from new EV purchases in 2001.

Can the Government work with our local electric motorcycle retailers and manufacturers to secure affordably priced motorbikes for our delivery riders? Can the Government also work with electric vehicle rental companies to keep renting costs more affordable for users? It currently costs more to rent an electric vehicle, compared to petrol-engine cars.

(In English): I now move to my last point on fiscal strategy and plans during and beyond the COVID-19 crisis.

I support Budget 2021 Plan to fund future infrastructure investments via the SINGA Bond and hope as part of our fiscal strategy in this current environment, we are not too constrained in speeding up our capital and fiscal investment commitments to put us in better state for the future.

I would like to take the opportunity to suggest, as part of inculcating inclusivity in our fiscal strategy, to allow the public to invest in any future green bonds and other long-term infrastructure-related bonds issued by the Government. For example, in the past Budgets, we had offered shares to citizens which are linked to GDP growth. The Singapore Savings Bond is also very well sought after. So, are there plans to issue more and smaller retail green bonds or notes to Singaporeans so as to have a stake in Singapore's sustainable future?

Before I end, Mdm Speaker, with the multiple Budgets last year and the draw on our reserves, there is concern as to how we will fund things we need to do going forward.

In that regard, some, including the hon Member Hazel Poa had called for a full extent of our reserves to be made known.

As someone who works in the financial markets and currency markets, I would like to share my frank thoughts from a professional viewpoint why we should strongly never reveal the data of our reserves. Let me explain why.

Unlike most countries, Singapore utilises the exchange rate as the instrument of monetary policy. It is key to note this. Most other countries use the interest rate as a monetary policy tool. This choice is made based on our economy’s unique circumstances and also the fact that exchange rate is relatively controllable through direct intervention in the foreign exchange markets.

On the other hand, this makes us vulnerable to currency speculation and attacks. We have seen such attacks during the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997/1998, impacting our economy and jobs. In fact, I started looking for a job right smack in the aftermath of the speculative attacks on some currencies in the Asian region during the Asian Financial Crisis in 1998, right after school. Let me tell you it was not easy back then. The impact then on sentiment, the economy and jobs in Asia and Singapore was bad.

As a financial centre, there is also the risk of capital flows if our currency is attacked for speculative reasons. I do not think we want to add the additional element of this risk into the equation for our Singaporean job seekers. So, publicising data from our reserves is akin to revealing the size of our ammunition to hedge funds and speculators out there with large pool of funds to play with. Not only that; other market participants may also join the bandwagon and ride the speculation and those are not just in billions of potential, it could be even higher. The potential risks and downsides outweigh the benefits of transparency.

Our geo-political context is also vastly different from other countries that publicise details about their reserves, like Norway. Norway’s monetary policy is that of an inflation-targeting regime to achieve lower and stable inflation. Norway's policy rate is the interest rate on banks' overnight deposit rates in Norges Bank and its currency is free floating. Now, remember, I mentioned earlier, Singapore uses its exchange rate, not its interest rate. In Norway, its petrol-driven economy is also very different from ours and with a value-added tax or VAT of up to 25%, it is in stark contrast to our GST rate.

So, with vastly different economic considerations, it is not wise to compare, and say that we too should disclose our reserves just because others do. I would also remind that transparency is practised where it is safe and sensible to do so, and it is not true that our reserves are completely undisclosed. For example, Temasek and MAS fund sizes are made public, only GIC’s is not.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, as a Member of this House, I would like to explicitly indicate my concerns about any moves to be more transparent on our reserves. Yes, hon Member Hazel Poa asked for the total reserves data from an economic, fiscal prudence angle. So, what is the amount and how it should used. It is understandable that people want to know. But foreign actors, currency speculators and anyone who does not wish us well is also interested to know. As I mentioned, people may join the bandwagon.

So, there are trade-offs. The Government has to weigh in balance. The balance struck is that the Government discloses a lot already but not all. And I am glad it is done delicately and, so delicately, by our responsible Government. It would be prudent that we do not make unnecessary moves to reveal our total reserves, though sincere in its intent for more information, that it can unwittingly lead to significant negative economic outcomes given our domestic context. The results of decades of sound monetary and fiscal policies are evident in the resilience of our economy, which has weathered multiple storms over the decades.

So, once again, I would like to explicitly state and indicate my concerns about any moves to be more transparent on our reserves.

Since we are on the topic of reserves, Mdm Speaker, I would also like to comment on the suggestion of hon Member Mr Leong Mun Wai to use all the NIRC and not just 50%. I would be seriously concerned if the Government were to do this. The current 50 to 50 percentage divide was explained by the Prime Minister when the framework was first introduced in 2008. It was to have fairness between the present and future generations even though it is not an exact science. Fifty percent for now this generation and 50% ploughed back for future generations.

If we use all now, there is little, if anything left in terms of NIRC for the younger generation, the younger and future generations to come. Importantly, by ploughing back 50% we continue to grow our reserves and that is important; while, at the same time, allowing the Government to tap on part of the investment income for current spending.

The principle of fairness, responsibility, prudent stewardship and having a thought for the future is important for the Government and permeates every Budget.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, yesterday, hon Member Hazel Poa also separately suggested that the Government target towards a higher 50% wage component as a percent of GDP. I actually intended to ask Ms Hzal Poa to clarify on her unique suggestion to target wage component on GDP, as I assume she knows that the major reason why wages as a percent of GDP is lower than our operating surplus of corporates and other organisations of 66.2% of GDP, is because of heavy MNC presence and the structure of our economy. So, I was thinking whether she is suggesting to reduce our MNC presence in Singapore now, at this point in time. Unfortunately, she is not here in the Chamber but that is something I was wanting to find out.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, on that point and that note, I support the Emerging Stronger Together Budget, a Budget which aims to raise the welfare of the people in the long run. Thank you, Mdm Speaker. [Applause.]

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

7.09 pm

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I am wondering if I could obtain a clarification from the Member on what he feels that the revelation of reserves would necessarily be destabilising. And I will just point out a few reasons why I disagree.

The first is that revealing a target as well as reserves certainly could encourage destabilising speculation but it could also encourage stabilising speculation. If we were off our fundamentally determined exchange rates, we could encourage market participants to actually engage in speculative activity that would get us back onto our fundamental exchange rate.

This, in fact, was a point that was routinely argued by the inventor of the Basket, Band, Crawl (BBC) system, John Williamson for which we, MAS, subscribes to.

The second point I would like to point out is that actually, while it is convenient to argue that we have a distinct system in terms of exchange rate policy, by purchasing power parity, all exchange rate policy is in fact monetary policy. So, even though it is the case that we target explicitly the exchange rate, it will have implications for inflation and, hence, when other countries, as the Member has cited, such as Norway reveal that they have a certain amount of reserves and they are subscribers to an inflation targeting regime, it is not, in fact, distinct from our own exchange rate targeting regime.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Saktiandi, do you want to respond?

Mr Saktiandi Supaat: The hon Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, if I can try to recall your first question. But I will probably take your second question first. The second question is about, if I can recall again, Professor, you asked whether on the first one, there is stabilising and destabilising currency and speculative attacks.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: I am suggesting that speculation can both be destabilising as well stabilising.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat: Okay. I just want to share with you. I started off working in the MAS back in 1998/1999. The impact of the currency attacks can never be stabilising. It has ramifications on the economy. It has ramifications on jobs. But back in the Asian Financial Crisis, the impact on the currencies that were specifically attacked, like Thailand and even to some extent, other countries in the ASEAN region, was very significant; to the point that the currencies depreciated so much that it led to the ramifications and cascading effects on the economy.

So, what I saw in the Asian Financial Crisis, which was a perfect example of a speculative attack, led to economic ramifications that are not destabilising at all. That is from my own lived experience in 1998/1999; not theory. So, the theoretical element that you shared from a theory perspective that there can be destabilising impact of currency adjustments or misalignments – yes, that it can be stabilising – in theory, does not make sense, unless you are talking about misalignments in the long run, that eventually correct themselves in time. So, that is the first question.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: If I may clarify, I should point out that I am in fact old enough to have also lived through the Asian Financial Crisis and I am aware of the conditions surrounding it. So, this is not just in theory, it was also my lived experience.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat: Your second question, Assoc Prof Jamus? About Norway's policy and how is it different from the Singapore's policy? If I may put it in general terms?

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: No, I was pointing out that I did not think that they were distinct policies because all exchange rate policy is in fact monetary policy and I am wondering if you could clarify why you thought they were distinct.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat: Okay, okay, let me try to explain to you.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Saktiandi, can the two of you just speak to the Chair and just clarify the point.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat: Yes. Mdm Deputy Speaker, to answer the question about the difference between Norway's monetary policy and Singapore's monetary policy, they are very distinct.

I mentioned in my speech about the different economic context of Norway where it is a petrol-driven economy and where Singapore is a very trade-driven economy. The reliance of using exchange rate as a controllable intermediate target in the Singapore economy is very distinct from Norway which uses a policy rate in its central bank.

So, the important issue here when you are talking about reserves in this situation for Singapore, when Singapore uses the exchange rate as its policy tool, there is a direct intervention in the markets – using currencies spot to have an direct impact on the Sing Dollar. That is very specific because we target the exchange rate. If you look at Norway, Norway uses policy rate and its exchange rate is freely floated.

So, for Singapore's case, the very fact that we target, the intermediate target of an exchange rate has some impact in terms of our ability to directly intervene in the markets and thus run down on our reserves, on MAS reserves. So, there is a very direct impact from a policy perspective; and thus, ramifications on our ability to have a direct rundown on reserves.

In Norway's case, the policy target is totally different. It is using policy rates or interest rates.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Okay, Mr Saktiandi, thank you for clarifying. I think we can move on. Mr Alex Yam.

7.15 pm

Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mdm Deputy Speaker, it is always a challenge to be one of the last speakers of the day. But it is also an opportunity to look back at the day and slowly remove paragraphs that other hon Members have already covered.

As you may well conclude from my written notes, I have thrown out my original and just gone for some key points.

My first plea this evening is that amidst the boldness of this Budget that looks beyond the now and focuses on the future, post-pandemic, ready not just to take off, but also be at the front of the pack, that we take another bold step. And that suggestion is to make vaccination mandatory. Let me explain why.

We have taken bold steps to control the pandemic over the course of the last one year, many of which involved making things compulsory – mask wearing, social distancing, amongst others.

We now have in our hands a weapon that brings the fight to the virus and over 216 million people worldwide have received at least the first dose. Adverse reactions have been very, very low, much like many other common vaccines that we take on a regular basis, and much less risk compared to smoking.

The decision to vaccinate is not just personal to holder. It does not just impact you as an individual. It is a matter of life or death for loved ones, friends, fellow countrymen, especially those who, because of medical reasons, are unable to be vaccinated. And we have invested significantly in this endeavour. So, let us be bold. We cannot be willy nilly about it. If we believe in it, that it works, we should stand by it and, therefore, it should be conditionally opt-out rather than voluntarily opt-in, because only when we control this enemy, this virus, can the bold moves that this Budget and its intents bear fruit.

On the topic of fruits, I now move to the kitchen larder.

We have been drawing from our reserves in the last two years – difficult, but needed decisions. It is a bit like taking a cookie out of the cookie jar. It is really tempting after that first delicious cookie to keep reaching in, cookie after cookie. Soon, you end up a cookie monster, forever tempted when you see a cookie.

I have been listening quite intently to many of the alternative suggestions that have been put forward in this House over the last two days. And I imagine that, for the Minister for Finance, it is a tremendously difficult task.

From the opposite bench, many of the suggestions seemed to indicate that everything can be easily funded because it is only X% of the GDP – very easy one, can be done. But if we take all these suggestions together – X% here, Y% there, Z% somewhere else – it adds up significantly. That is a whole lot of cookies to be given out.

So, right now, while there is a lot of cookies that we are eating, there does not seem to be a whole lot of cookie-making. Our hon friends from the Workers' Party seem to say that eat, eat away, not everything, be careful, but here is a little chocolate chip and sprinkles while you at it. And if we run low, instead of buying the ingredients, the Government should make more, yet not what is necessary to provide ingredients to make the cookies.

Our colleagues from the PSP, on the other hand, over the last two days, seemed to indicate we should take everything from the jar, everything, including the crumbs.

However, no one wants to say how much it would cost nor be the one to be buying the ingredients.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Mr Alex Yam. Yes, Mr Singh.

7.20 pm

Mr Pritam Singh: Mdm Deputy Speaker, thank you. Rules of debate. It is, of course, up to the Member if he wants to give way. I just wanted to ask whether Mr Alex Yam could identify which Workers' Party Members made the points that he is suggesting so that they can rebut him later on in the course of the debate.

Mr Alex Yam: Sure, I will come to that.

But no one wants to say how much it would cost nor be the one to buy the ingredients and bake those cookies. That big elephant in the room, of course, is GST.

We cannot be constantly asking for more without being cogent of the cost. Funding from recurrent tax ensures that all that we are doing is sustainable.

With GST, we have also built in buffers for the low-income. Over and above that, as the hon Member Mr Saktiandi pointed out earlier, we also the GST Voucher Fund Act in March 2020, just under a year ago to cushion the impact of any GST increases for all Singaporeans both low-income and middle income families. With these, we also give time for incomes to catch up so that we can deal with long-term cost of living. The challenges that we face are many and varied, including an ageing society that will propel increases in many areas, including, most importantly, healthcare cost.

It is not just us that are facing these challenges. Hong Kong and Singapore are very similar cities with very similar traits at the end of the day. And they have just announced their Budget as well, just yesterday. But despite the similarities, our Budgets have taken very different trajectories.

Some commentators point to a future deficit in the Hong Kong spending plan. Andy Mukherjee of Bloomberg raised the point that Singapore's plan for an increase in GST is to ensure that we have enough recurring revenue to pay for permanent costs, such as healthcare. He compares these to Hong Kong and says, like Singapore, Hong Kong also has an ageing population, but they do not have a sales tax and has only been able to overcome its lack of steady revenue by fanning a gigantic real estate bubble. It is certainly a scenario we will not be able to stomach locally. Yes, there is always room to do more but raiding the cookie jar till it is empty does us no good, if we fail to top it up.

On the one hand, we may propose taxes, such as carbon tax. On the other hand, by equal measure, we oppose petrol hike, both of which achieve similar goals. These seemed to conflict with one another. A government, however, needs to be cognisant of the fact that there are costs to everything that we do, both in terms of our revenue streams, what more we can do for our people and, more importantly, also our popularity and our standing.

The Government is cognisant also of the fact that a policy like an increase in GST is unpopular but necessary because, ultimately, the responsibility of a responsible government is to do the right thing, even if occasionally unpopular. Populism and opportunism will, however, all but turn us into cookie monsters, always dipping into the cookie jar.

I am sure the Minister for Finance is open to many other suggestions on how we can fund these programmes and yet remain sustainable as an economy and balance our fiscal position. And if there is one that works as an alternative, I am certain it will take the biscuit.

Much has been said over the last two days by both sides of the House. Many new suggestions, all of which will cost us. The Minister for Finance has to decide which are for the long-term good of the country and which will take us to the next mile.

All of us have the good of Singapore at heart. We differ perhaps greatly on our ideas but, at the end of the day, we need to take responsible decisions to bring Singapore forward. With that, I support the Budget.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

7.26 pm

Mr Leon Perera: Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker and I thank the hon Member Mr Alex Yam for his comments. Just a couple of clarifications on his cookie jar metaphor.

He mentioned that when we draw upon the reserves or when we suggest that the rules governing the use of the reserves should be changed, this is akin to sort of taking cookies from the cookie jar. I think the Member is well aware that in 2008, I believe the Government itself, the PAP Government amended the rules governing the use of the reserves to create the NIR framework. And in 2015, those rules were amended again to include Temasek into that framework. Is it the Member's position or argument that those were really raiding the cookie jar as well, in 2008 and 2015? That is kind of my first point.

Secondly, it is really to ask the hon Member, is it the Member's view that any kind of deviation away from these rules that are currently entrenched in the Constitution, in the current rules, amounts to sort of raiding the cookie jar and becoming a cookie monster, even if those rules are slowing the slope of the growth of the reserves, but do not actually draw upon and pull down the reserves, but they merely slow the growth from this sort of a slope, for example, to this sort of a slope, for example? Is that being a cookie monster? That is my second question.

My third question would be really to ask, over time, over decades, as the absolute amount of reserves relative to GDP changes, does the Member not acknowledge that these rules should also evolve and change, and as society changes and the needs of society change and the opportunities to invest in our people, in the country change, should not those rules also be subject to change as well? I would just like to invite the hon Member Mr Alex Yam to agree with that general philosophical point.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Alex Yam.

Mr Alex Yam: Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank the hon Member for his supplementary questions and clarifications. I agree, because that is what I made as a closing point in my speech. We all have the good of Singapore at heart. We may disagree with the route to get there.

But on the first point, yes, as we go along, we make adjustments, such as introducing the NIR. But as was described earlier, we put in measures to ensure that we never empty out the cookie jar, that the cookie jar exists for moments of need, such as these. And even at the current moment, where we would benefit certainly from being extraordinarily generous, we have decided on what is prudent to ensure that there is always something left over and, not only that, that where we have the opportunity, to top it back up.

So, it is a quite different scenario from introducing changes to rob the cookie jar. We have always ensured that we are prudent about it, that we make returns to it.

As things evolve, just as it has in the past, ideas can be considered and adjustments made. But always with the view that we think about the future and not just about the now.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Rachel Ong.

7.30 pm

Miss Rachel Ong (West Coast): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I am grateful that this year’s Budget has incorporated a very sizeable investment in our social capital and our environment, this in view of our long-term growth as a nation. I also wish to thank our Deputy Prime Minister, as well as the Ministries and agencies which have worked tirelessly behind the scenes all through the Chinese New Year holidays to put forward this year’s Budget.

This year’s Budget allows for MSF to expand the Community Link, or ComLink programme, designed to support low-income families with children, from the current 1,000 families to 14,000 in the next two years. Thank you. I am very inspired by that! To this topic, my speech will focus on what we can do to further invest into the lives of our children from low-income families.

I wish to propose two initiatives for our young friends for MSF’s consideration. These initiatives may not be new to some of us, but I am convinced that when applied intentionally to our young, they will strengthen their access to a fuller range of positive life choices.

The first initiative is a consistent long-term mentoring programme, and the second initiative is to facilitate personal saving habits.

Please allow me to first share on the Consistent Long-Term Mentoring Programme. Last month, the Telok Blangah Community Development Welfare Fund awarded bursaries to 188 children across 118 households ranging from K2 to pre-tertiary students. While this bursary is important, and helps alleviate some financial burden, it struck me that the additional funds will not change the lives of our young. Because of the complexity they face today in the ever-evolving environment, each child will require deeper interventions to access opportunities which are readily available to others.

Over the past 19 years, I have had the joy of volunteering at Trybe, a social service agency that works with youths facing adversities. Our interventions to reduce offences and their recidivism rates are multi-fold, but one specific intervention has proven to be most effective in turning lives around, that is, long-term mentorship, mentorship that is consistent for at least a year.

I believe that this intervention is not only effective for our youths at risk, but for all youths facing challenging home circumstances. May I share life stories to illustrate three key benefits long-term mentorship provides for our young?

The first benefit is a safe space to process pain. Long-term mentorship provides our young an assurance that they are not alone in the challenges they face on a daily basis.

Kai, a masked name, was raised in a violent home environment. He often fought in school and found himself expelled from both Secondary and tertiary schools as he could not rid himself of his aggression. Over the two years of mentoring, Kai was able to then reflect on the consequences of his aggression, subsequently shifting his focus to working out his life goals. As Kai’s mentor created time and space for him to feel understood, Kai sought help for his anger issue and is now meaningfully engaged in work. His friends have also noticed that he is experiencing better mental well-being.

In the midst of sometimes unpredictable or painful circumstances, the consistency of the mentor’s presence provides a safe environment and space for our young to process their feelings and thoughts for a more productive outcome in life.

The second benefit of a consistent and long-term mentorship is the ability to help our young recognise his or her innate value beyond circumstance. The strengths and passions of our children and youth can sometimes be overshadowed by family circumstance. Long-term mentorship provides an avenue to help them discover and more accurately identify what they are.

Abandoned by his parents when he was seven years old, Ken was raised by his grandfather. Due to limited supervision, he lacked motivation to do well in school and eventually fell into bad company and vice. Things started to turn around when he said yes to mentoring four years ago. Ken grew to discover and appreciate his personal strengths and passion. He is now looking to pursue a stable career in engineering while freelancing as a barber. What is even more wonderful is that Ken has since reconciled with his family.

As our young friends discover their innate value as individuals through mentorship, they grow to become contributing members of their families, their community and the society at large.

The third benefit of long-term mentorship is the ability to break out of self-limiting habits and beliefs. A volunteer at a CDAC programme for low-income children once asked an 11-year-old which school she hoped to go to after PSLE. This sweet girl then said, matter-of-factly, “Oh, can pass, can already.” The volunteer then asked “What do you want to do when you grow up?” Without missing a beat, she replied “Just help my father in his store, lor.” For this 11-year-old, her response came not from excitement to support and eventually take over her father’s business, but as her only perceived vocational option available to her, which eventually discouraged further efforts in her education.

One of the largest hindrances in the healthy development of our young people we note is learned disempowering beliefs about themselves and their future due to limited access to good counsel, financial and community resources.

Mentors can show them a different way to live, and challenge them to remove self-limiting beliefs so that they not only have the best possibilities in life, but be motivated to choose wisely. Such intervention takes time as these beliefs are often deep-seated. I am fully persuaded that lasting, sustainable change for our disadvantaged young will take place if we invest in long-term mentoring programmes for them.

My hope is that, through ComLink, long-term mentoring will be of easy access for our 10- to 16-year-olds to effect mindset growth and a healthier worldview.

I will now move to the second initiative aligning to ComLink for our young friends, and this will be very brief, which is to facilitate personal saving habits.

In 2015, POSB re-introduced the “National School Savings Campaign” to great response and participation by schools. This programme currently requires the parents to set up the bank account for their children and to monitor it. I wish to raise for MSF’s consideration the possibility of making enrolment to this programme automatic for our children in low-income families. This will also see to creating a corresponding personal savings account for them, ideally complemented by other initiatives to encourage saving.

Facilitating the process or simplifying it will be of great value to the already time-stretched parents. This will jumpstart our children in the positive habits of saving and grow a sense of self-efficacy for a fruitful life. Our youth must be empowered, not be afraid to hope, and be unhindered by socio-economic backgrounds. Let us extend equitable access beyond finance and education to include the social and emotional support they need. May we see every youth a success story as they author our Singapore Story for the generations to come.

On this note, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I affirm my support for the Budget.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.

7.38 pm

Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong): Mdm Deputy Speaker, every Budget is a statement of intent on our social compact. Today, I would like to talk about how our social compact might look like as we emerge stronger, together from COVID-19.

First, on Healthcare, which is a top concern for Singaporeans, especially as we get older. Indeed, healthcare costs for us, as a society, are escalating. This year, the operating expenditure for health is estimated to be $17.4 billion, compared to an estimated $11.7 billion last year, and $10 billion in 2019.

This makes healthcare the highest Head of Expenditure in 2021, compared to third highest in previous years, after Defence and Education. A big reason for this is our on-going fight against COVID-19, with close to $5 billion allocated to the COVID-19 Package. And I think this $5 billion is absolutely vital ammunition, for testing, tracing and vaccination.

It bears reminding that there are already 2.5 million confirmed COVID-19 deaths around the world to date, with many more unreported. In Singapore, the toll is 29 deaths. The Government has done well in managing COVID-19 here so far, and the COVID-19 Package will give the Government the means to continue keeping all of us safe in 2021.

But beyond COVID-19, we might as well start getting used to healthcare being the highest expenditure item, and start getting used to numbers like $17 billion because, in due time, even with COVID-19 behind us, this would be our fiscal reality.

For this year, already, $0.5 billion more has been set aside – for more patient subsidies as three polyclinics open, for the ramp-up of Woodlands Campus, for recruitment of manpower into these new facilities, and for MediShield Life premium support, as well as other forms of grants and financial assistance to Singaporeans.

Within our social compact, the central question for the future of healthcare is this: How – and how much – would we, as a people, continue to care for one another, in sickness and infirmity?

One of my residents’ parent came to Singapore to visit before COVID-19 and could not go back home since last year. The parent declined in health, went in and out of hospital here, as a non-Singaporean and eventually passed on. The hospital bills came up to five digits, even in a C class ward. I think his experience shows vividly the real cost of healthcare, and the real difference that Government subsidies for Singaporeans, at the outset of care, makes.

And, so, subsidies must continue to be a central feature of healthcare here, in order to keep it affordable for Singaporeans, but the challenge is how might we, as a society, keep these subsidies going, for the maximum benefit of all Singaporeans? Let me make four points.

First, we have to try and contain cost per capita – in other words, the cost to care for each Singaporean, on average. This is a difficult task, as ever more tests and therapies rapidly become standard in care. So, we need to continue making tough decisions on standard versus non-standard therapies and care modalities.

Ultimately, we all want the best care for ourselves, and our loved ones. But we need to also keep a firm eye on value and effectiveness. And this would only work, if all of us, as a society, embrace this basic principle.

Even so, I think it is inevitable that costs per capita will rise, and this is my second point. One reason is the need to duly recognise healthcare professionals for their noble and very hard work. So, while I cheered at the plans to enhance salaries in public healthcare, we need to recognise that manpower is a key driver of healthcare costs and, ultimately, any salary enhancement must mean that subsidies and other financing tools must somehow keep up.

If we can all intuitively understand and support this, it will be a good example of how we, as a society, can continue to evolve our consensus and do what is right and fair.

All these, in turn, would mean that we need to raise more revenue. And this is my third point. Already, GST will increase, sooner or later. But GST, fundamentally, relies on a robust consumption base. This is why I support the Budget’s laser-sharp focus on investing in our economy: investing in recovery from COVID-19; investing in industry transformation; and investing in our people.

In his Budget Statement, the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned Xnergy, a local start-up in contactless charging. In fact, one of the co-founders of Xnergy is my resident, and I could sense the absolute energy as he talks about his team and his business.

For me, it is a glimpse into our economic possibilities, where Singapore is the place to create the future, for the world, yielding exciting roles for Singaporeans and, importantly, generating the means for us to better care for one another, as a society.

And, so, there is a direct link between our economic success and social objectives, and the economy must continue to be a basic parameter as we think and talk about our social compact going forward.

On this note, I like to ask: the Government projects that GST collections this year would recover 14.6% from last year, to roughly 2019 levels, and corporate income tax would grow 8% compared to 2019 before COVID-19, and even Net Investment Returns Contribution would go up 7.8% from last year. Can the Deputy Prime Minister clarify the basis for these projections amidst the severe economic contraction that we experienced last year?

My final point on healthcare subsidies is this. In the aggregate, we must keep the growth in total subsidies to a sustainable pace because, ultimately, things do add up.

This Budget draws on past reserves for a second year running. And as many Members have noted, eventually, we want to start replenishing our reserves. And so, we must be very prudent about how much our total outlay in healthcare subsidies should grow in the years ahead.

Now, if costs grow faster than fiscal revenue, then healthcare subsidies might need redistribution because, ultimately, the pie is finite. And some of us might get less subsidies, in order that those who need these the most can continue to get the right level of support.

At the same time, we should review how subsidies could also be redistributed across various settings of care so that we can further channel care to each right setting and enhance care continuity across settings.

I repeat the call I made in my maiden speech for the Government to invest more deeply in Intermediate and Long-Term Care (ILTC) so that we go beyond basic to dignified care for Singaporeans who need such care.

Our nursing homes ought to be more home than nursing. And I believe that we, as a society, support such a basic direction. But more subsidies for this sector may mean less subsidies for acute and specialist care in hospitals, for example.

And so, these are tough choices, but choices that we, as a maturing society, must continue to make. In short, to secure the healthcare dimension in our future social compact, I think we need to flatten the cost curve, keep a lid on total subsidies and, within this, distribute subsidies judiciously across means and settings, and, number four, create better health and care outcomes for all Singaporeans, and, five, all these on the basis of a sound economy. We need a refreshed consensus on how we can all lean in to make this happen.

Madam, let me speak next about strengthening social service delivery for Singaporeans with less in life. We have decided, fundamentally, that we will not impose a cap – a ceiling on our progress as a society – that the top, and the middle, will continue to grow as fast, and go as far, as they can.

Our central task, therefore, must be to do our level best to help the bottom, especially children at the bottom, to level with their peers.

For every tuition class, every sport, coding or other passion that their peers pursue because they can afford to, we have to help the young at the bottom level with their peers, as much as possible.

Therefore, I support the Government’s commitment to intervene actively and intervene more in early life. I support the additional $0.2 billion set aside for the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA), to further develop quality and affordable childcare for every Singaporean child, and I especially look forward to the expansion of KidSTART, so that more children at the bottom can get a holistic and sustained uplift, starting from early in life, even before birth.

At the same time, we need to double down on holistic support for the entire family at the bottom, so that we help parents and care-givers to do well, and do better, even as they continue to do their best for their children.

There is a whole range of needs – housing, jobs, food, physical and mental health – with complex interdependencies, and we need to coordinate more to address these needs.

So, I strongly support the planned expansion of Community Link (ComLink), from 1,000 families in the pilot phase, to 14,000 families, and, hopefully, to many thousands more eventually.

Just yesterday, I spoke to a CEO about corporate giving. I explained the gist of ComLink to him, and his first response was, "Oh, this is huge". So, his corporate instincts told him so immediately.

Indeed, this is huge. ComLink has the potential to be the platform that transforms our social service sector, the galaxy that lifts all agencies and partners up to a higher plane and pulls everyone closer together, with its gravitational force. And as a society, I hope we can all help make ComLink succeed quickly.

In Singapore, our approach has always been Many Helping Hands. In fact, we need more helping hands, going forward. But we also need one plan. Many helping hands, one plan, because, ultimately, it is about one family, the same lives.

Madam, an ever fairer and more just society in Singapore should be one that keeps progressing, keeps advancing, but one where we all find it in ourselves to look back, reach out, pull fellow Singaporeans along, and on a platform, an impact multiplier, that coordinates and weaves all our efforts together.

I hope this "social operating system" can become a core capability, at the whole-of-society level, for Singapore to emerge stronger. In this way, I think every Singaporean can have his or her shot to become the fullest version of himself or herself in life.

Madam, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] COVID-19 has allowed the world, Singapore and the individual to undergo a major change. In fact, we should capture the opportunity and transform.

In the area of healthcare, I fully support the move to raise the salaries of nurses and other healthcare workers. After all, salary cost is a key component of the healthcare industry. It will be worth pondering over how the framework of Government subsidies can adjust to it, and how we can rebalance the allocation of subsidies within the framework.

In terms of supporting vulnerable families, I hope that ComLink will be upgraded to become a platform for future community service operations, integrating community services and resources in a holistic manner.

In conclusion, I hope that our social compact will become stronger and stronger, and this is probably one of the fundamental meanings of emerging stronger in a post-COVID-19 world.

(In English): Madam, in Singapore, we say the best welfare is a job. In this light, a key part of our compact must also be about how we, as a society, could enable and sustain good jobs, and good salaries, for our lowest wage workers.

And to frame this properly, I think it is not so much about reskilling and pivoting these workers to new industries, but about helping them to do better within their sectors.

To this end, I agree that the expanded Progressive Wage Model (PWM), when conditions allow, would be a key plank. But at the same time, a big part of the basic equation here, I think, must simply be for all of us to recognise and pay more for low-wage workers' services.

It is such a stark paradox, but one that bears constant reminding that as the world went into lockdown last year, and as we entered our own circuit breaker, the workers that continued going to work, the workers that could not work from home, the workers that basically kept our world going were so often the low-wage workers providing essential services.

So, as a society, I think it is high time – high time as COVID-19 rages on – that, we, not the Government, but we – as consumers, as a people – do what is right, what is just, and show our willingness to pay a fairer level for our low-wage workers' services.

Madam, let me conclude.

We have an opportunity to shape the post-COVID-19 society that we want to be, transform our compact, transform how we commit to caring for one another.

COVID-19 has fundamentally upended how we value things in life, reshuffled what truly matters, and redefined how we look at the world, each other, and ourselves.

We can – we must – ride on COVID-19 to emerge as a society that is ever more vested in one another's success, where those with more are ever more willing to put in their treasures, talent and time for those with less, where the hallmark of success is to pay it forward, and to help others do well and be well.

In this way, we can emerge stronger, together, as a thriving democracy of deeds. Madam, I stand in firm support of this Budget. [Applause.]

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Deputy Leader.